CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has dismissed the state government’s appeal against the single judge’s order on pensionary benefits to retired work-charged employee Ashok Pattanayak, terming it as ‘devoid of merits’ and criticising the government for adopting a step-motherly attitude.
Pattanayak was initially appointed on daily labour roll (DLR) basis on September 1, 1985, and later brought into the work-charged establishment with effect from January 18, 2011. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation on April 30, 2024. However, despite having rendered over three decades of continuous service, he was denied pensionary benefits, though several similarly situated employees were granted pension.
On May 20, 2024, a single judge bench directed principal secretary, Works Department, to consider extending pension to Pattanayak. Challenging this, the state filed a writ appeal in May 2025, contending that under Rule 3 read with Rule 18(3) of the Odisha Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992, persons engaged in casual or work-charged establishments were disentitled to pension, and that the single judge’s order suffered from “an error apparent on the face of the record”.
Rejecting the appeal, a division bench comprising Justices Dixit Krishna Shripad and Chittaranjan Dash accepted the submissions of senior advocate Manoj Kumar Mishra, appearing along with advocate Tanmay Mishra for Pattanayak.
The bench observed: “There is force in the submission of senior advocate Manoj Kumar Mishra that when the state has already granted terminal benefits like pension, etc., under the provisions of 1992 Rules post 2005 amendment, it would carve out a class within the class of pensioners.”
The court noted that the additional government advocate did not dispute that “all other similarly circumstanced employees, who had litigated before this court successfully, have been granted pensionary benefits under the 1992 Rules”. It questioned, “If that be so, what justification the state has to adopt a step-motherly attitude for the poor respondents herein, remains un-understandable.”