The Orissa High Court has strongly questioned the state government's approach in a pension denial case. The court criticized what it called a 'step-motherly attitude' toward a retired casual employee who served for over three decades.
Court Dismisses State's Appeal
A division bench comprising Justices Dixit Krishna Shripad and Chittaranjan Dash dismissed the government's appeal on January 12. The state had challenged a May 20, 2024 order from a single judge that directed the works department to consider pension for Ashok Kumar Pattanayak.
Three Decades of Service
Pattanayak began his service on September 1, 1985 as a daily labour roll employee. The works department later brought him into their work-charged establishment effective January 18, 2011. Work-charged employees receive wages directly charged to specific projects like construction or maintenance work.
He retired on April 30, 2024 upon reaching superannuation age. Despite his long and continuous service, authorities denied him pension benefits. This happened even as several similarly placed employees received pensions under the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992.
Government's Argument Rejected
The state argued that Rule 3, read with Rule 18(3) of the 1992 Rules, bars persons in casual employment or work-charged establishments from receiving pensions. They claimed the single judge's order contained 'an error apparent on the face of the record.'
The court noted that the additional government advocate did not dispute one crucial fact. All other similarly circumstanced employees who had litigated successfully before the court had received pensionary benefits under the 1992 Rules.
Court's Strong Remarks
Questioning the state's approach, the bench stated in its judgment: "If that be so, what justification the state has to adopt a step-motherly attitude for the poor retiree herein, remains un-understandable."
The court emphasized that the government must act as a 'model employer.' It remarked that the state should have suo motu extended the benefit of earlier High Court decisions instead of forcing retirees to litigate.
Concern Over Litigation
Expressing concern about mounting case pendency, the bench added: "Which section of the bureaucracy prompts filing of cases of the kind, remains a riddle wrapped in enigma."
The court rejected the appeal as "devoid of merits" and directed the state to implement the single judge's order within eight weeks. Authorities must file a compliance report within two weeks after implementation.
The bench cautioned against driving the retiree into "another round of avoidable litigation." Senior advocate Manoj Kumar Mishra and advocate Tanmay Mishra represented Pattanayak in this case.
