Orissa High Court
Lilima Sahani vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 29 January, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.2130 of 2026
Lilima Sahani ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Binaya Kumar Mohanty
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. C.M.Singh, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
29.01.2026 Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:
"The petitioner, therefore humbly prays that, this Hon'ble Court would be graciously to admit this writ application and to issue notice to Opp. Parties to file their show cause as to why the writ application shall not be allowed if the Opp. Parties did not file their show cause of files insufficient cause then shall be pleased to quash Annexure-8 and to direct the Opp.Parties particularly the Opp. Party No.2 to release the revised pension accrued to the petitioner in accordance to the letter of Director the Opp. Party No. 3 vide Annexure-7 after calling back the documents from the Director, which he has returned Page 1 of 5. vide Annexure-8 the letter dated 18.10.2025 within a specified period fixed by this Hon'ble Court; And pass any such other order/orders, direction/ directions as may be deem fit just and proper;."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner has superannuated from service while working as Sr.SEs Headmaster, Bapujee Govt. High School, Balia, Jagatsinghpur. He further contended that as per the Finance Department Memorandum dated 22.01.2025, the Petitioner had retired on 30.06.2024 i.e. a day before her annual increment was due on 01.07.2024. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that pursuant to the O.M. dated 22.01.2025 at Annexure-3 of the Finance Department, Govt. of Odisha, the Petitioner is to be extended with her benefit of increment on notional basis. He further submitted that similar benefits have been extended in favour of the similarly situated other employees. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture further submitted the recommendation was made for grant of such increment by the Director of Secondary Education, Odisha vide letter dated 05.07.2025 at Annexure-7.
5. While the matter stood thus, the Controller of Accounts, Opposite Party No.2 vide letter dated 18.10.2025 at Annexure-8 returned the service book of the Petitioner without processing the same for grant of pensionary benefits by taking into account the notional increment. The letter dated 18.10.2025, it has been mentioned by the Opposite Party No.3 that they have not received any instruction from the School & Mass Education, Page 2 of 5. Govt. of Odisha regarding grant of notional increment for the purpose of calculation of pension and pensionary benefit.
6. In reply to the aforesaid stand taken by the Controller of Accounts, Opposite Party No.2, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied heavily upon the Office Memorandum dated 22.01.2025 at Annexure-3 and submitted before this Court that pursuant to the judgment of this Court by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) No.17715 of 2020 in the matter of Arun Kumar Biswal vs. State of Odisha, a direction has been given to the Opposite Paty-State to extend the benefit of notional increment, if the employee is retiring on the day before the day on which the increment falls due. In view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court dated 30.07.2021, the Finance Department of Govt. of Odisha has issued Office Memorandum dated 22.01.2025. Despite such judgment of this Court as well as the Office Memorandum at Annexure-3, the Opposite Party No.2 has rejected the claim of the Petitioner and thereafter the service book has been returned.
7. Learned counsel for the State at this juncture contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however on a careful examination of the pleadings as well as the documents annexed to the writ application, it appears that the case of the Petitioner has not been considered in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 22.01.2025. He further submitted that the recommendation has already been made by the Director of Secondary Education in favour of the Petitioner vide letter Page 3 of 5. dated 05.07.2025 under Annexure-7. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner does not have any subsequent grievance against the State Government. Accordingly, it was prayed that the writ application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing from both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as documents annexed to the writ application, this Court at the outset observe that the claim of the Petitioner for grant of notional increment and re-fixation of pension by taking into consideration such notional increment has not been considered by the Opposite Party No.2. Although, a recommendation was made by the Director of Secondary Education vide letter under Annexure-7, the same has not been considered favourably by the Opposite Party No.2. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Party No.2, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. Considering the nature of the grievance involved in the present writ application as well as the Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2025 at Annexure-7, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at this stage by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with supporting documents within two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 shall do well to consider the grievance of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law and in terms of the Page 4 of 5. Office Memorandum dated 22.01.2025, subject to the condition that the same is applicable to the case of the Petitioner, and dispose of the representation within a period of eight weeks by passing a speaking and reasoned order. In the event, the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 come to conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit in terms of the Office Memorandum at Annexure-7, necessary follow-up steps be taken for disbursal of financial benefit as is due and admissible to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of taking such decision.
9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of.
10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Rubi Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5. Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 02-Feb-2026 16:51:07