Orissa High Court
Gagan Bihari Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha & Others …. Opp. … on 23 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.23402 of 2022
In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, 1950.
..................
Gagan Bihari Mohapatra .... Petitioners
& Others
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Adv. along with
Mr.J. Biswal, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. Das, ASC
Mr.C.A. Rao, Sr. Adv. for O.P.3
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Date of Hearing: 05.02.2026 and Date of Judgment: 23.02.2026
// 2 //
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging office order dtd.09.04.2012 so passed by
Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-4, with regard to
extension of the benefit of revised scale of pay in terms
of the provisions contained under ORSP Rules, 2008 (
in short ‘Rules’).
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners contended that ORSP Rules, 2008 was
notified by the Government in the Finance Department
vide Notification dtd.24.12.2008 under Annexure-3 and
benefit of the said Rule was made effective w.e.f.
01.01.2006.
3.1. It is contended that by the time Notification
dtd.24.12.2008 was issued under Annexure-3, save
and except Petitioner Nos.5, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 22,
Page 2 of 21
// 3 //
23, 29, 30, 31 & 36, other Petitioner were in the pay
roll of Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. (in
short ‘Corporation’).
3.2. It is contended that even though benefit of the
revised scale under the Rules so notified on 24.12.2018
under Annexure-3, was made effective w.e.f.
01.01.2006, but since no decision was taken by the
Corporation in extending the benefit of revision of the
scale of pay in favour of its employees, Petitioners who
were on the pay roll as on the date of Notification
dtd.24.12.2008, save and except Petitioners placed at
S.L. Nos. 5, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31 &
36, were deprived to get the benefit of such revised
scale of pay and consequential revision of pension and
pensionary benefits.
3.3. It is further contended that by the time in the
proceeding of the Meeting dtd.02.02.2011 under
Annexure-4-Series, decision was taken by the Fitment
Committee for fitment of different scale of pay in
Page 3 of 21
// 4 //
consonance with ORSP Rules, 2008 and for
implementation of the revised pay scale w.e.f.
01.01.2011 in favour of the employees in the pay roll of
the Corporation as on 01.01.2011, but w.e.f.
01.01.2006 on notional basis, since all the Petitioners
had already attained the age of superannuation, even
though in the pay roll as on 01.01.2006, were deprived
to get the benefit of revised scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and
consequential revision of pension and other pensionary
benefits.
3.4. Basing on such decision taken in the proceeding of
the meeting dtd.02.02.2011 under Annexure-4-Series,
when the Corporation decided to extend the benefit in
favour of its employees who were in the pay roll of the
Corporation as on 01.01.2011 and w.e.f. 01.01.2011
vide order dtd.09.04.2012, the present Petitioners
moved this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.17100 of 2012
with the following prayer:-
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
graciously be pleased to:-
Page 4 of 21
// 5 //
i) Admit the writ application;
ii) Call for the records;
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions directing the
Opp. Parties to extend the similar benefits of Orissa
Revised Scale of Pay Rules 2008 with effect from
1.1.2006 on notional basis as has been done in case of
the existing employees of the Corporation and further
direct the Opp. Parties to allow the Dearness Allowance
at the rate admissible to the Government employees
from time to time within a reasonable time to be
stipulated by this Hon’ble Court;
iv) And/or pass such other order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may think fit
and proper for the ends of justice;
And for this act of kindness the petitioners as in duty
bound shall ever pray.”
3.5. It is however contended that since in the earlier
Writ Petition in W.P.(C) No.17100 of 2012 no challenge
was made either to office order dtd.09.04.2012 and the
decision taken in the proceeding of the meeting dtd.
02.02.2011, the present Writ Petition was filed inter
alia challenging order dtd.09.04.2012 as well as the
decision taken in the proceeding of the meeting
dtd.02.02.2011 under Annexure-4-Series. However,
this Court vide order dtd.03.02.2026, permitted the
Petitioners to prosecute the present Writ Petition and
Page 5 of 21
// 6 //
the Writ Petition in W.P.(C) No.17100 of 2012 was
treated as not pressed.
3.6. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the
Petitioners contended that since because of the delay in
taking a decision to extend the benefit of ORSP Rules,
2008, all the Petitioners attained the age of
superannuation, such a decision was taken to extend
the benefit in favour of the employees in the pay roll as
on 01.01.2011 w.e.f. 01.01.2011, is without any reason
and basis, such a decision is not only erroneous and
illegal but also not sustainable in the eye of law being
arbitrary as well as discriminatory.
3.7. It is also contended that in the proceeding of the
Meeting dtd.02.02.2011, though it was decided to
extend the benefit of ORSP Rules, 2008 in favour of the
existing employees who were in the pay roll of the
Corporation as on 01.01.2011, but pay of such
employees was revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006 on notional
basis. Whereas in Para-2 of the proceeding of the
Page 6 of 21
// 7 //
meeting dtd.02.02.2011 under Annexure-4-Series, it
was decided to extend the benefit in favour of the
existing employees in the pay roll of the Corporation as
on 01.01.2011 w.e.f. 01.01.2011, but in Para-7 of the
said proceeding, benefit of such revised scale was
allowed w.e.f. 01.01.2006 on notional basis. Not only
that pay of the existing employees as on 01.01.2011
was also revised on notional basis w.e.f. 01.01.2006, so
reflected vide orders issued under Annexure-5-Series.
3.8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners accordingly contended that since on the face
of the decision taken by the Corporation to extend the
benefit of ORSP Rules, 2008 to its existing employees
as on 01.01.2011 w.e.f. 01.01.2011, such benefit of
revised pay was made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2006 on
notional basis, Petitioners who were on the pay roll as
on 01.01.2006 are also eligible and entitled to get the
benefit of such revision of their pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006
on notional basis and consequential revision of their
pension and pensionary benefits.
Page 7 of 21
// 8 //
3.9. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance
was placed to the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of (1) D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India &
Ors., reported in 1983 (1) SCC-305, (2) Union of India
& Ors. vs. SPS Vains & Ors., reported in 2008(2)
SCC (LS)-838, (3) Harekrushna Mohanty & Ors. vs.
State of Orissa reported in (1986) 61 CLT-75.
3.10. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara
in Para-28 & 29 of the judgment has held as follows:-
“28. Pensions to civil employees of the Government and
the defence personnel as administered in India appear
to be a compensation for service rendered in the past.
However, as held in Douge v. Board of Education [302
US 74 : 83 L Ed 57] a pension is closely akin to wages
in that it consists of payment provided by an employer,
is paid in consideration of past service and serves the
purpose of helping the recipient meet the expenses of
living. This appears to be the nearest to our approach to
pension with the added qualification that it should
ordinarily ensure freedom from undeserved want.
29. Summing up it can be said with confidence that
pension is not only compensation for loyal service
rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader
significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic
justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life
when physical and mental prowess is ebbing
corresponding to aging process and, therefore, one is
required to fall back on savings. One such saving in
kind is when you give your best in the hey-day of life to
your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security
by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has
been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend
made in consideration of past service or a surrender ofPage 8 of 21
// 9 //rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus
the pension payable to a government employee is
earned by rendering long and efficient service and
therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the
compensation or for service rendered. In one sentence
one can say that the most practical raison d’etre for
pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old
age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not
senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon.
3.11. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SPS Vains &
Ors. in Para-29 & 30 of the judgment has held as
follows:-
“29. The Constitution Bench (in D.S. Nakara [(1983) 1
SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] ) has discussed in
detail the objects of granting pension and we need not,
therefore, dilate any further on the said subject, but the
decision in the aforesaid case has been consistently
referred to in various subsequent judgments of this
Court, to which we need not refer. In fact, all the
relevant judgments delivered on the subject prior to the
decision of the Constitution Bench have been considered
and dealt with in detail in the aforesaid case. The
directions ultimately given by the Constitution Bench in
the said case in order to resolve the dispute which had
arisen, is of relevance to resolve the dispute in this case
also.
30. However, before we give such directions we must
also observe that the submissions advanced on behalf
of the Union of India cannot be accepted in view of the
decision in D.S. Nakara case [(1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983
SCC (L&S) 145] . The object sought to be achieved was
not to create a class within a class, but to ensure that
the benefits of pension were made available to all
persons of the same class equally. To hold otherwise
would cause violence to the provisions of Article 14 of
the Constitution. It could not also have been the
intention of the authorities to equate the pension
payable to officers of two different ranks by resorting to
the step-up principle envisaged in the fundamental rules
in a manner where the other officers belonging to the
same cadre would be receiving a higher pension.
Page 9 of 21
// 10 //
3.12. This Court in the case of Harekrushna Mohanty
in Para-4 of the judgment has held as follows:-
“4. The Supreme Court by its decision reported in D.
and others v. Union of India‘, (supra) observed “……
With the expanding horizons of socio-economic justice,
the socialist Republic and welfare State which we
endeavor to set up and largely influenced by the fact
that the old men who retired when emoluments were
comparatively low and vagaries of continuously rising
prices, the falling value are exposed of the rupee
consequent upon inflationary inputs, we are satisfied
that by introducing an arbitrary a eligibility criteria:
‘being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified
date’ for being eligible for the liberalized pension scheme
and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, the
classification being not based on any discernible
rational principle and having been found wholly
unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant
of liberalized pension and the eligibility criteria devised
being thoroughly arbitrary, we are of the view that the
eligibility for liberalized pension scheme of ‘being in
service on the specified date’ and retiring sub-sequent to
that date in impugned memoranda, Exhibits P. 1 and P.
2, violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional and is
struck down. Both the memoranda shall be enforced
and implemented as read down as under: In other
words, in Ext. P-1, the words:
‘that in respect of the Government servants who were in
service on the 31st March, 1979 and retiring from
service on or after that date and in Exhibit P-2 the
words:
„the new rates of pension are effective from 1st April,
1979 and will be applicable to all service officers who
became/become non-effective on or after that date are
unconstitutional and are struck down with this
specification that the date mentioned therein will be
relevant as being one from which the liberalized pension
scheme becomes operative to all pensioners governed by
1972 Rules irrespective of the date of retirement.
Omitting the unconstitutional part it is declared that allPage 10 of 21
// 11 //pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules and Army
Pension Regulations shall be entitled to pension as
computed under the liberalized pension scheme from the
specified date, irrespective of the date of retirement.
Arrears of pension prior to the specified date as per
fresh computation is not admissible……”
No doubt, following the Supreme Court decision, the
Government of Orissa has extended the benefit of the
scheme to the pensioners who have retired before 31-3-
1979, but has imposed the restriction that the same
would be available to them only from 1-1-1985 vide
Annexure-4. Thus, Annexure-4 has made discrimination
between employees who have retired prior to 31-3-1979
and after that date inasmuch as the pensioners retiring
after 31-3-1979 would be entitled to the liberalized
pension scheme with effect from 1-4-1979, but others
would get the same only from 1-1-1985. In view of the
Supreme Court decision cited above, this is clearly
discriminatory and hence unsustainable.
4. Mr. C.A. Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing
for the Opposite Party No.3-Corporation on the other
hand made his submissions basing on the stand taken
in the counter affidavit so filed.
4.1. It is contended that even though vide notification
dtd.24.12.2018 under Annexure-3, benefit of revised
scale of pay under ORSP Rules, 2008 was made
effective w.e.f. 01.01.2006, but Government in the
Department of Public Enterprises vide its Resolution
dtd.08.05.2009 under Annexure-B, permitted the State
Public Sector undertakings to allow such revision of
Page 11 of 21
// 12 //
scale of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006, subject to fulfillment of
the following eligibility criteria as per ORSP Rules,
2008:-
“(i) The Public Sector Undertakings must be a profit
making one and its balance sheet must show
cumulative profit at least for the last consecutive, two
years.
(ii) The Public Sector Undertaking must not have
defaulted in payment of statutory dues of the employees
such as provident Fund and ESI etc.
(iii) The Public Sector Undertaking must not have
defaulted in payment of loan to any financial institution
or Government. The Public Sector Undertaking must be
up to date in payment of guarantee fee/ royalty /
dividend to the State Government, whichever is
applicable.
(iv) The Public Sector Undertaking must have completed
statutory audit up to date.
(v) The Public Sector Undertaking has to meet the
expenditure for payment of revised scale of pay to the
employees from its internal resources and must not
depend on Government for any financial support on
such expenditure.”
4.2. It is contended that basing on such direction
issued by the Government in the Department of Public
Enterprises vide its Resolution dtd.08.05.2009 under
Annexure-B, the Board of Directors of the Corporation
in its proceeding dtd.24.12.2010 under Annexure-C,
approved the proposal for implementation of the
Page 12 of 21
// 13 //
revised scale of pay as per ORSP Rules, 2008, to be
payable w.e.f. 01.01.2011, to the employees of the
Corporation who are in the pay roll as on 01.01.2011.
The Board of Directors while taking such a decision
under Annexure-C, authorized the Managing Director
of the Corporation to finalize the fitment of different
scale of pay as per ORSP Rules, 2008.
4.3. It is contended that basing on the decision so
taken by the Board of Directors in its proceeding
dtd.24.12.2010 under Annexure-C, the Managing
Director of the Corporation vide office order
dtd.31.01.2011, constituted a Committee for
finalization of the fitment of different scale of pay in
consonance with ORSP Rules, 2008 in favour of the
employees of the Corporation who are in the pay roll as
on 01.01.2011.
4.4. It is contended that in terms of the decision taken
by the Board of Directors under Annexure-C and the
order issued by the Managing Director of the
Page 13 of 21
// 14 //
Corporation on 31.01.2011 under Annexure-D, the
Fitment Committee in its proceeding dtd.02.02.2011
under Annexure-4-Series, held the employees of the
Corporation who were in the pay roll of the Corporation
as on 01.01.2011 to get the benefit of ORSP Rules,
2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2011. However, the Fitment
Committee allowed such revision of the scale of pay
w.e.f. 01.01.2006, in favour of its existing employees on
notional basis and actual financial benefits was given
only w.e.f. 01.01.2011.
4.5. It is accordingly contended that since by the time
the Board of Directors in its proceeding dtd.24.12.2010
under Annexure-C took the decision to extend the
benefit of the revised scale in favour of the existing
employees w.e.f. 01.01.2011, all the Petitioners which
is not disputed, had already retired on attaining the
age of superannuation, in view of the stipulation
contained in Para-2 of the proceeding of the meeting
dtd.02.02.2011 under Annexure-4-Series, Petitioners
are not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of revised
Page 14 of 21
// 15 //
scale of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006, even on notional basis.
Para-2 of the proceeding reads as follows:-
“2. COVERAGE:
The revised pay scale as per the ORSP Rules, 2008
shall apply to all Officers and staff of the Corporation
—who are in whole time employment and who are
in pay roll of the Corporation as on 01.01.2011.
—All employees, workers who had retired/ expired/
voluntarily retired/ terminated/ resigned etc, on or after
01.01.2011.
However, this pay revision shall not apply to
NMR/Contingent workers and also employees/workers
who are engaged through Contractors/Service providers
and deputationists”.
4.6. It is accordingly contended that Petitioners are
not eligible to get the benefit as prayed for and the
same has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order
dtd.09.04.2012 under Annexure-4.
5. To the stand taken in the counter affidavit,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners
made further submission basing on the stand taken in
the rejoinder affidavit. Though it is not disputed that
pursuant to the Resolution of the Board of Directors of
the Corporation in its proceeding dtd.24.12.2010 under
Annexure-C, the Board approved the proposal for
Page 15 of 21
// 16 //
implementation of the revised scale as per ORSP Rules,
2008 in favour of the existing employees w.e.f.
01.01.2011 who are in the pay roll as on 01.01.2011,
and such a decision was also taken by the Fitment
Committee in its proceeding dtd.02.02.2011 under
Annexure-4-Series, but all such existing employees
who were on the pay roll of the Corporation as on on
01.01.2011, were extended with the benefit of revised
scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006 on notional basis and actual
financial benefit w.e.f.01.01.2011.
5.1. In support of his aforesaid submission, reliance
was placed to office order dtd.30.04.2012 so available
under Annexure-5-Series. Taking this Court to order
dtd.30.04.2012, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the Petitioners contended that pay of the existing
employees as on 01.01.2011, was revised notionally
w.e.f. 01.01.2006 i.e. the date ORSP Rules, 2008 was
made effective.
Page 16 of 21
// 17 //
5.2. It is accordingly contended that since all the
Petitioners were on the pay roll of the Corporation as
on 01.01.2006, and all of them retired during the
period 2006 to 2010, they became eligible and entitled
to get the benefit of revision of their pay scale w.e.f.
01.01.2006 on notional basis and consequential
revision of their pension and other pensionary benefits
with payment of the differential arrear.
6. Having heard learned Senior counsels appearing
for the Parties and considering the submissions made,
this Court finds that the Petitioners which is not
disputed are employees working under the Corporation
and all of them retired during the period from 2007 to
2010. It is not disputed that ORSP Rules, 2008 was
made effective w.e.f. 01.01.2006 vide Notification
issued on dtd.24.12.2008 under Annexure-3.
Pursuant to the Resolution issued by the Government
in the Public Enterprises Department on 08.05.2009
under Annexure-B, extension of the benefit of revised
scale as per ORSP Rules, 2008, was considered by the
Page 17 of 21
// 18 //
Board of Director of the Corporation in its proceeding
dtd.24.12.2010 under Annexure-C.
6.1. In the said proceeding, the Board of Directors
approved the proposal for implementation of the
revised scale under ORSP Rules, 2008 in favour of its
existing employees w.e.f. 01.01.2011 who are on the
pay roll as on 01.01.2011. Such decision taken by the
Board of Directors in its proceeding under Annexure-C
to the counter, was approved by the Fitment Committee
in its proceeding dtd.02.02.2011 under Annexure-4-
Series. As per Para-2 of the proceeding dtd.02.02.2011,
the revised scale was made applicable to the employees
of the Corporation w.e.f.1.1.2011, who are in the pay
roll on as on 01.01.2011. But as found, on the face of
such decision taken to extend the benefit to the
existing employees as on 01.01.2011 w.e.f. 01.01.2011,
scale of pay of such employees was revised notionally
w.e.f 01.01.2006 in terms of Para-7 of the proceeding
dtd.02.02.2011 under Annexure-4-Series. Para-7 of the
proceeding reads as follows:-
Page 18 of 21
// 19 //
“7. Drawal of pay in the revised pay structure:
Save as otherwise provided an employee shall draw pay in
the corresponding pay in pay band with grade pay in revised
pay structure applicable to the post to which he is appointed:
Provided that an employee may elect to continue to draw his
pay in the existing scale until the date on which he earns his
next increment in the existing scale falling due within a
period of one year from the date of enforcement of the revised
scale of pay or until he vacates his post or ceases to draw the
pay in that scale:
Provided further that in case where an employee has been
placed in a higher pay scale between 01.01.2006 and the
date of notification of the order of revision of scale of pay on
account of promotion and up gradation of pay scale, the
employee may elect to switch over to the revised pay
structure from the date of such promotion and up gradation;
Explanation (1) – The option to retain the existing scale under
the provisos to this rule shall be admissible only in respect of
one existing scale.
Explanation (2) – The aforesaid option shall not be admissible
to any person appointed to a post on or after the 1st day. of
January 2006, whether for the first time in Corporation
service or by transfer from another post and he shall be
allowed pay only in the revised pay structure.
Explanation (3) Where an employee exercises the option
under the provisos to this rule to retain the existing scale in
respect of a post held by him in an officiating capacity on a
regular basis for the purpose of regulation of pay in that scale
under any rule or order applicable to that post, his
substantive pay shall be substantive pay which he would
have drawn had he retained the existing scale in respect of
the permanent post on which he holds a lien or would have
held a lien had his lien not been suspended or the pay of the
officiating post which has acquired the character of
substantive pay in accordance with any order for the time
being in force, whichever is higher.”
6.2. As found from the order available under
Annexure-5-Series, on the face of the decision taken by
the Board of Directors in its proceeding under
Annexure-C and the decision taken by the Fitment
Page 19 of 21
// 20 //Committee in its proceeding under Annexure-4-Series,
while extending the benefit of revised scale w.e.f.
01.01.2011 in favour of its employees who are on the
pay roll as on 01.01.2011, pay scale of such employees
were revised notionally w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
6.3. Since all the Petitioners, which is not disputed
were on the pay roll of the Corporation as on
01.01.2006, it is the view of this Court that Petitioners
are also eligible and entitled for revision of their scale of
pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
6.4. This Court accordingly while holding so with
quashing of the impugned order dtd.09.04.2012, so
issued by Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-4,
directs the Opposite Party-Corporation to revise the
scale of pay of the Petitioners as per ORSP Rules, 2008
w.e.f. 01.01.2006 on notional basis and revise the
pension and other pensionary benefits as due and
admissible accordingly.
Page 20 of 21
// 21 //
6.5. This Court further directs the Opposite Party-
Corporation to release the differential pension and
pensionary benefits on such extension of the revised
scale of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 on notional basis. This
Court directs Opposite Party No.3 to complete the
entire exercise as directed within a period of four (4)
months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions,
the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 23rd February, 2026/Subrat
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Feb-2026 12:23:31
Page 21 of 21
