CUTTACK: The Supreme Court has declined to interfere against the Orissa High Court’s December 4, 2023, judgment which declared the Odisha Development Authorities (Retirement Benefit of the Employees) Rules, 2015 ultra vires to the provisions in the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982 as well as Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
The state government had filed a special leave petition (SLP) in the apex court against the high court judgement passed on a petition that challenged the legal validity of the Odisha Development Authorities (Retirement Benefit of the Employees) Rules, 2015 denying pension to employees working in development authorities prior to September 17, 2005. Bhuban Mohan Dash, an employee of Cuttack Development Authority (CDA) had filed the petition.
On the state government’s plea, the Supreme Court bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih on Friday held that no case for interference was made out in exercise of the apex court’s jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the SLP.
The high court had specified the consequences that ensued as a logical corollary to its judgment. Firstly, employees working under any development authority, who are in receipt of pensionary benefit on par with their counterparts in state government cannot be affected by any subsequent Rule.
Secondly, the employees, who had joined in service prior to September 17, 2005, (the date of notification of the amendment in Sub-Rule (4) of Rule (3) of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992), are to get their retirement benefits on par with their counterparts in the government and they cannot be equated with those working in an industry or factory establishment.
Thirdly, employees who have joined after September 17, 2005 would be entitled to the benefits under the new structured defined contribution pension scheme as applicable to their counterparts in the state government.
Accordingly, the high court had held that the petitioner, being an employee appointed prior to January 1, 2005, was entitled to get pension, as is being availed by the similarly situated employees under the state government.
The high court order also specified, “Let the retiral benefits be disbursed in favour of the petitioner, who is stated to have been retired on superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition, in accordance with law, within a period of the three months from the date of receipt of the copy of judgment.”