Orissa High Court slams government over ‘unworthy’ litigation, restores pension for official with 30 years service

The Orissa High Court noted that several unworthy cases are filed before courts even when debatable issues have already been laid to rest at the level of the Supreme Court. (Image enhanced using AI)

Observations

• This court notes it with penury at heart that several unworthy cases are filed before courts even when debatable issues have already been laid to rest at the level of the top court.
• All the issues raised by the state had already been conclusively settled.
• The Supreme Court had declined to interfere in similar matters, thereby giving finality to the legal position.
• The state should have voluntarily extended the benefit of settled judgments.
• That course would have saved public time of the court and private time of the litigants, when pendency of cases is mounting up
• Which section of the bureaucracy prompts filing of cases of the kind, remains a riddle wrapped in enigma.
• The single judge’s order be implemented within eight weeks without driving the “poor” respondents to another round of avoidable litigation.
• A compliance report be filed before the registrar general of the high court within two weeks.
• The respondent should not be compelled into further litigation for enforcement of an already settled right.

Background

• The appeal was filed by the principal secretary, government works department, challenging a single judge order dated May 20, 2024.
• The single judge had directed the state to consider the representation of Ashok Kumar Pattanayak, a former employee, for grant of pensionary benefits.
• Similar issues relating to pension of employees engaged in casual or work-charged establishments had already been settled by division benches of various high courts and the Supreme Court.

Arguments

• Additional Government Advocate S B Mohanty, appearing for the state argued that the single judge erred in allowing the writ petition at the admission stage without permitting the state to file a counter affidavit.
• Mentioning Rules 3 and 18 of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, he said that these rules barred pension benefits to casual or work-charged employees.
• He submitted that executive instructions of 1974 governed such employment and excluded pensionary claims.
• Opposing the appeal, Senior Advocate M K Mishra along with advocates Tanmay Mishra, D K Patnaik and R Mishra contended that the respondent had rendered more than three decades of continuous service.
• The counsel said that identically placed employees had already been granted pensionary benefits following earlier judgments.
• They submitted that denial of similar benefits would amount to creating “a class within a class,” offending equality principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
• As a “model employer,” the state ought not to force employees into avoidable litigation, the counsel said.