Daijiworld Media Network - Cuttack

Cuttack, Jan 15: The Orissa High Court has dismissed the state government’s appeal challenging the grant of pensionary benefits to a retired work-charged employee, terming the plea as “devoid of merits” and strongly criticising the government for adopting a “step-motherly attitude”.

The case relates to Ashok Pattanayak, who was initially engaged on a daily labour roll (DLR) basis on September 1, 1985, and was later absorbed into the work-charged establishment with effect from January 18, 2011. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation on April 30, 2024. Despite rendering more than three decades of continuous service, Pattanayak was denied pensionary benefits, even as several similarly placed employees were granted pension.

On May 20, 2024, a single judge of the high court had directed the principal secretary of the Works Department to consider extending pensionary benefits to Pattanayak. Aggrieved by the order, the state government filed a writ appeal in May 2025, arguing 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 not entitled to pension. The state further claimed that the single judge’s order suffered from an “error apparent on the face of the record”.

However, a division bench comprising Justices Dixit Krishna Shripad and Chittaranjan Dash rejected the appeal, accepting the submissions made by senior advocate Manoj Kumar Mishra, who appeared for Pattanayak along with advocate Tanmay Mishra.

The bench observed that once the state had already extended terminal benefits, including pension, to similarly situated employees under the 1992 Rules after the 2005 amendment, denying the same benefit to Pattanayak would amount to creating “a class within the class of pensioners”.

The court also noted that the additional government advocate did not dispute the fact that other employees in identical circumstances, who had approached the court earlier, were granted pensionary benefits under the 1992 Rules. “If that be so, what justification the state has to adopt a step-motherly attitude for the poor respondent herein remains un-understandable,” the bench remarked.

With these observations, the high court dismissed the state’s appeal, clearing the way for Pattanayak to receive his pensionary dues.