Orissa High Court slams government over ‘unworthy’ litigation, restores pension for official with 30 years service
Orissa Pension Case News: Justices Dixit Krishna Shripad and Chittaranjan Dash was hearing an appeal by the government against a single judge order granting pension benefits to a former government employee and upheld the verdict.
4 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Jan 15, 2026 05:17 PM IST
Orissa High Court News: Which section of the bureaucracy prompts filing of cases of the kind, remains a riddle wrapped in enigma, said the Orissa High Court. (Image generated using AI)
Orissa High Court News: Restoring the pension of a government official with 30 years of service, the Orissa High Court recently chided the government for filing “unworthy cases” and said that such a tendency ought to be curbed soon, otherwise it would be detrimental to the citizens.
A bench of Justices Dixit Krishna Shripad and Chittaranjan Dash was hearing an appeal by the principal secretary of the government works department against a single judge order granting pension benefits to a former government employee with three decades of service and upheld the verdict.
“Such a tendency on the part of the state and its instrumentalities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India needs to be checked, and sooner it is done, better it will be. Otherwise, the objects of a constitutionally ordained welfare State would be defeated to the detriment of citizens,” the order dated January 12 said.
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.
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.
Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system.
Expertise
Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including:
Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability.
Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters.
Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights.
Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More
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)
