The Orissa High Court delivered a sharp rebuke to the state government over what it termed "unworthy" litigation. The court restored pension benefits for a former government official who served for three decades. Justices Dixit Krishna Shripad and Chittaranjan Dash upheld a single judge's order that granted pension to the employee.
Court's Strong Observations
The bench expressed deep concern about the government's tendency to file unnecessary cases. It noted that several such unworthy cases reach the courts even when the Supreme Court has already settled the issues. The court stated this practice must be checked soon. Otherwise, it would defeat the purpose of a welfare state and harm citizens.
Specific Case Details
The government's principal secretary of the works department filed an appeal against the single judge's order. That order had directed the state to consider pension for Ashok Kumar Pattanayak, the former employee. The High Court dismissed this appeal and upheld the earlier verdict.
The court emphasized that all issues raised by the state had already been conclusively settled. The Supreme Court declined to interfere in similar matters, giving finality to the legal position. The state should have voluntarily extended the benefit of these settled judgments. This would have saved public court time and private litigant time, especially when case pendency is mounting.
Bureaucratic Riddle
"Which section of the bureaucracy prompts filing of cases of the kind, remains a riddle wrapped in enigma," the court remarked. It ordered implementation of the single judge's order within eight weeks. The respondents should not be driven to another round of avoidable litigation. A compliance report must be filed before the registrar general of the high court within two weeks.
Legal Arguments Presented
Additional Government Advocate S B Mohanty argued for the state. He said the single judge erred in allowing the writ petition at the admission stage without permitting a counter affidavit. Citing Rules 3 and 18 of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, he claimed these rules barred pension for casual or work-charged employees. He submitted that 1974 executive instructions governed such employment and excluded pensionary claims.
Senior Advocate M K Mishra, along with other advocates, opposed the appeal. They contended the respondent had rendered more than thirty years of continuous service. Identically placed employees had already received pension benefits following earlier judgments. Denying similar benefits would create "a class within a class," offending equality principles. As a model employer, the state should not force employees into avoidable litigation, they argued.
Background of the Case
The appeal challenged a single judge order dated May 20, 2024. That order directed the state to consider the representation for pensionary benefits. Similar issues about pension for employees in casual or work-charged establishments had been settled by division benches of various high courts and the Supreme Court.
The Orissa High Court's order, dated January 12, 2026, reinforces judicial concern over wasteful litigation. It highlights the need for government accountability in legal matters affecting citizens' rights.
