Orissa High Court
Ratnakar Panda & Ors vs Olic Ltd. & Ors on 31 July, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 3529 of 2004
Ratnakar Panda & Ors. ..... Petitioner
Mr. S. Patra-1, Adv.
-versus-
OLIC Ltd. & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.P. Das, ASC
Mr. A.K. Panigrahi, Adv.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
31.07.2026
Order No. 23
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following
prayer:-
“It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court
be graciously pleased to issue a writ/writs in the
nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders
under Annexures 4 & 5 to the extent those permit the
employees of Opposite Party No.1 to go on Voluntary
Retirement/Voluntary Separation with retrospective
effect from 30.4.03/31.5.03;
And further be pleased to issue & writ or writs
Certiorari quashing the orders in the nature of a Writ
of under Annexure-8 series, 9 series and 10 so far as
these retire/Separate the petitioners with
retrospective effect after declaring these as illegal,Page 1 of 5.
And be further pleased to issue a writ/writs in the
nature of a writ of mandamus directing the Opposite
Parties to allow the petitioners to go on Voluntary
Retirement/Voluntary Separation from the actual
date/dates on which their requests for Voluntary
Retirement/Voluntary Separation were accepted i.e.
sometime in May 2004 with all financial and
consequential benefits;
And pass any other order/orders as would be deemed
fit and proper under the circumstances;
And for this act of kindness, the petitioners shall as in
duty bound ever pray.”
4. It is contended that even though pursuant to the communication
issued on 17.02.2004 under Annexure-4 and subsequent
communication issued on 23.02.2004 under Annexure-5, Petitioners
made their application to take the VRS. However since it was accepted
only vide order dated 20.05.2004 under Annexure-8-series but w.e.f.
31.05.2003, the present Writ petition was filed challenging the orders
issued under Annexure-4 & 5 as well as Annexure-8, 9 & 10.
4.1. It is contended that since admittedly the Petitioners on the face of
their application to take VRS w.e.f. 31.05.2003, they are allowed to
continue till 20.05.2004 and discharged their duty during the period
31.05.2003 to 20.05.2004, they are eligible and entitled to get the
benefit of salary for the period they worked beyond 31.05.2003.
4.2. It is also contended that similar benefit of salary for the period
they worked beyond 31.05.2003 was given to the appointees, who
were appointed under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme vide
Annexure-12 order dated 01.12.2006.
Page 2 of 5.
4.3. Making all these submission, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners contended that the Opp. Party-Corporation be directed to
release the salary in favour of the Petitioner for the period 31.05.2003
to 20.05.2004 with quashing of the orders under Annexure-4, 5, 8, 9
& 10.
5. Mr. A.K. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the Corporation pursuant to
the order passed by this Court on 29.06.2026 produced the document
showing the release of the benefits in favour of the employees, who
had made their application to take VRS, pursuant to the
communication issued under Annexure-1 & 2 in Court.
5.1. This Court after going through the documents find that such
benefit has been extended in favour of the employees on various dates
till 2005.
5.2. Mr. A.K. Panigrahi, learned counsel further contended that similar
claim was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.16097 of 2005. This Court
vide order dated 01.07.2015, when held the Petitioners therein to get
the salary but declined to issue any such direction to extend the benefit,
Petitioners therein moved this Court in Writ Appeal No.534 of 2015.
The Writ Appellate Court vide order dated 26.09.2022 while
dismissing the Writ Appeal passed the following order:-
“Misc. Case No. 721 of 2015
1. This is an application for condonation of delay in
filing the appeal.
2. For the reasons stated therein, the delay in filing the
appeal is condoned. The Misc. Case is disposed of.
W.A. No.534 of 2015
Page 3 of 5.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant relies on the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ashok
Kumar Prusty v. State of Odisha (2013) III OLR 451 to
urge that it covers the case on hand as well.
4. The Court is unable to agree with the above
submission. The said decision dealt with issue of
regularization of the worker and the paragraph referred
to by the learned counsel for the Appellant talks of
arrears of salary for the period of work performed.
However, in the present case as pointed out by the
learned Single Judge, the Appellant knowingly applied
for the Voluntary Retirement from Service (VRS) aware
that once it is accepted, it would relate back to 30th April,
2003. Consequently, the prayer of the Appellant that he
should be paid arrears of salary up to the date of actual
acceptance of the VRS i.e. 20th May, 2004 was without
merit and has been rightly rejected by the learned Single
Judge. Consequently, the Court finds no grounds to
interfere. The appeal is dismissed.”
5.3. It is contended that the Writ Appellate Court since has held that
once the employees therein made the application to take the VRS and
they know that once it is accepted, it would relate back to 30 th April,
2003, their claim to get the salary till the acceptance of the VRS that
is 20.05.2004, is without any merit. While holding so, the Writ
Appellate Court dismissed the Writ Appeal.
5.4. It is contended that since similar claim was rejected by the Writ
Appellate Court in Writ Appeal No.534 of 2015 and taking into
account the view taken in order dated 26.09.2022, claim of the
Petitioners to get the salary for the period 31.05.2003 to 20.05.2004,
is not entertainable.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the
submission made, it is not disputed that pursuant to the
Page 4 of 5.
communications issued under Annexure-4 & 5, Petitioners made their
application to take VRS w.e.f. 31.05.2003. However, it is found that
such application submitted by the Petitioner to take VRS was accepted
on 20.05.2004.
6.1. Accordingly, claiming the benefit of salary for the period beyond
31.05.2003 till 20.05.2004, this Writ Petition has been filed. This
Court taking into account the nature of order passed in Writ Appeal
No.534 of 2015, so quoted hereinabove is of the view that similar
claim has not been entertained with dismissal of the claim in Writ
Appeal No.534 of 2015.
6.2. This Court in view of such decision in the Writ Appeal, is not
inclined to issue any direction to pay the salary as claimed for the
period 31.05.2003 to 20.05.2004.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Jyoti
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 03-Aug-2026 14:45:06
Page 5 of 5.
