Premature Retirement at Age 53 Violates Government’s Own Guidelines: Review Must Be at 50 or 55, Not Arbitrarily In-Between: Orissa High Court

“When law prescribes a specific manner, it must be done only in that manner or not at all”:- In a decisive ruling delivered by Orissa High Court quashed the premature retirement of a Head Typist/Computer Assistant Grade-I in the Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Limited (OPTCL), holding that the employer had violated mandatory procedural safeguards laid down in the Government guidelines adopted by the Corporation. The Court ruled that reviewing the employee’s continuance at the age of 53 was legally impermissible, as the guidelines permit such review only at the age of 50 and/or 55, thereby rendering the entire exercise ultra vires and void.

Delivering judgment in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7446 of 2021, titled Hrudananda Behera v. Chairman, OPTCL and Another, Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy strongly rebuked the OPTCL’s decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner at 53, describing it as “not sustainable in the eye of law” and in clear breach of the statutory procedure mandated by the Government Resolution dated 24.09.2019, which was formally adopted by OPTCL on 11.12.2019.

“Doctrine of Manner Prescribed Is Not Mere Semantics — Action Not as Per Procedure Is No Action in Law”: Orissa High Court Applies Constitutional and Administrative Law Principles

At the core of the judgment lies the doctrine that “if a statute prescribes doing an act in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone or not at all.” Relying on a trilogy of Supreme Court decisions — Bernard Francis Joseph v. State of Karnataka, Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja, and Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT — the High Court held that the Review Committee’s action of evaluating the petitioner’s case at age 53 was inherently invalid, as the prescribed review ages under Para 4 of the Resolution were 50 and 55, and the intervening age of 53 fell outside the statutory scheme.

“Since by the time the Review Committee took up the issue, Petitioner had already attained 53 years, such review could have been taken up on his attaining the age of 55 years, and not before that,” held the Court.

Further, the Court noted that Clause 3(ii) of the OSEB Employees’ Age of Retirement Regulation, 1979, under which the premature retirement was ordered, must be read subject to the procedural mandates of the 2019 Government Resolution, which was binding on OPTCL upon adoption.

“Non-Communication of Adverse Confidential Remarks Vitiates the Entire Process — Minor Punishment Followed by Promotions Cannot Justify Compulsory Retirement”

The Court delved deeply into the service record of the petitioner, who was first appointed as a Helper in 1995, and later promoted through the ranks, becoming a Head Typist/Computer Assistant Grade-I in 2015. The only material relied upon by the Review Committee to justify his premature retirement were:

• A minor punishment from 2007 (stoppage of one increment for one year)

• An uncommunicated adverse comment in his CCR for 2016–17 by the Reviewing Authority stating he had a “very negative attitude”

• A complaint made by a retired employees’ association in 2019

However, the Court found these grounds inadequate, procedurally deficient, and legally untenable.

“The adverse entry made by the Reviewing Authority in the CCR for the period 2016-17 has not been communicated to the Petitioner,” noted the Court, holding that such uncommunicated entries cannot form the basis of punitive administrative action, especially when the petitioner was promoted twice after the 2007 punishment, indicating institutional satisfaction with his service.

Quoting from State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, the Court reaffirmed that:

“The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry… and must be based on the entire service record.”

Further, citing State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, the Court emphasized that:

“Efficiency is a bundle of sticks of personal assets, thickest of which is the stick of integrity… If this is missing the whole bundle would disperse. But in the absence of sustained adverse records, a government servant cannot be considered inefficient.”

“Judicial Review Permissible When Power Is Exercised Arbitrarily or In Contravention of Law — Employer Cannot Claim Subjective Satisfaction Without Factual Foundation”

The Court rejected OPTCL’s claim that its decision was based on “public interest,” noting that no material was available to demonstrate continued inefficiency or doubtful integrity. Mere reference to vague complaints or one uncommunicated adverse remark does not meet the legal threshold.

“The complaints made against the Petitioner cannot be held that further continuance of the Petitioner is against public interest,” the Court firmly observed.

While accepting that judicial review in matters of compulsory retirement is limited, the Court clarified that courts can and must intervene where the power is exercised arbitrarily or contrary to mandatory procedure. In this context, reliance was placed on CISF v. HC (GD) Om Prakash, where the Supreme Court held that:

“The entire service record is to be taken into consideration… the recent reports would carry their own weight, but isolated old entries, particularly when followed by promotion, cannot solely justify compulsory retirement.”

“Review Committee Overstepped Its Jurisdiction — Corporation Must Reinstate Petitioner with 50% Back Benefits and Continuity of Service”

Holding that the Review Committee acted without jurisdiction, the Court set aside the Office Order dated 09.10.2020, which prematurely retired the petitioner. It directed OPTCL to reinstate him into service and to regularize the break in service with 50% of the back benefits, treating the intervening period as qualifying service for all purposes.

“This Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to reinstate the Petitioner in service… the break period shall be regularized with 50% of the benefits as due and admissible… and the entire exercise shall be completed within two months,” the Court ordered.

The judgment is a powerful reaffirmation of constitutional principles of fairness, procedural compliance, and administrative accountability. It reasserts that statutory guidelines are not mere administrative suggestions, but binding instruments of governance, and any departure must meet the test of express justification — which was absent in this case.

By quashing the arbitrary exercise of power and ordering reinstatement, the Orissa High Court has sent a strong message that legal formalities are not technicalities but essential safeguards, especially when careers and livelihoods are at stake.

Date of Decision: 09 October 2025