Orissa High Court
Dr. Swapneswar Pati And vs State Of Odisha And Others on 10 July, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.20727 of 2022
Dr. Swapneswar Pati and .... Petitioner
others
Mr. S.S. Das, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Salaka Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Ansuman Sethy, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
10.07.2026
(Hybrid Mode)
Order No.
09. 1. The matter is listed for hearing under the heading
‘For Admission’.
2. Counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties
has been filed. In response to the counter affidavit,
rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner.
The learned ASC requests for an extra copy of the
rejoinder which shall be served within two working
days.
The opposite party shall have the liberty to file
response to the rejoinder.
3. The learned Sr. Advocate made a summary of
submissions that the present petitioners who are the
lecturers in non-government aided colleges, they seek
Page 1 of 3
grant of gratuity similar to that of the lecturers
working in the government aided colleges post
retirement.
4. Referring to the stand taken by the opposite
parties in the counter, it is submitted that the opposite
parties have relied on Section 7(C) of the Orissa
Education Act, 1969 to contend that the State can only
pay gratuity according to the economic capacity and
not otherwise. Therefore, the State can decide not to
pay gratuity to a set of persons post their retirement
from service while working in non-government aided
colleges.
4.1. It is submitted that there is no intelligible
differentia between the present petitioners, retired
lecturers/readers from non-government aided colleges
and those who are in receipt of the gratuity i.e. the
retired lecturers/readers from government aided
colleges for the State to treat them differently.
4.2. It is submitted that apart from that there being
no intelligible differentia between two sets of
employees, there is no reasonable nexus with the
object to be achieved by treating the set of employees
differently by not paying them gratuity which is
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India.
4.3. It is further submitted that Article 13 provides
that laws inconsistent with or in derogation of
Page 2 of 3
fundamental rights shall be void. Referring to Article
13(3) it is submitted that the order /rule/regulations/
notification of the State Government denying payment
of gratuity to petitioners being in derogation of the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and
16 has to be declared to be void.
5. Learned Sr. Counsel refers to the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara and others
vs. Union of India : AIR 1983 SC 130 as well as
decision in Delhi Transport Corporation vs. D.I.C.
Mazdoor Congress and others : AIR 1991 SC 101 to
submit that the gratuity is not a bounty that the State
can decide not to pay but it is a statutory defined
amount, payment of which cannot be discriminatory
between two sets of employees similarly situated.
The learned Sr. Counsel submits that he shall
make further submission on the next date of hearing.
6. The learned ASC shall respond to the
submissions made by the learned Sr. Counsel for the
petitioner.
7. The matter shall be listed under the heading ‘For
Admission’ in the week commencing 03.08.2026.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Radha
Signed by: RADHARANI JENA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 14-Jul-2026 14:52:49
Page 3 of 3
