State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute

The Supreme Court of India reprimanded the Odisha government for its inordinate delays in pursuing legal remedies, emphasizing that even the state cannot "sleep over its rights" and expect judicial indulgence. The Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the casual approach of the Odisha authorities in handling writ appeals concerning pensionary benefits for job contract employees.

"Apathy in Pursuing Legal Remedies is a Burden on the State Exchequer" – Supreme Court Orders Costs Against Odisha Government

The Court condemned the repeated delays by the state, stating, "It is not a case concerning a few employees, rather it affects a large number, and in turn, the State Exchequer. Courts do not come to the rescue of those who sleep over their rights. Be it the State." The Court further criticized the state’s practice of filing belated Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) merely as a formality, leading to unnecessary litigation.

The dispute revolved around the pensionary benefits of job contract employees in Odisha. The core issue was whether the entire period of service of such employees should be counted for pension benefits. The Odisha High Court had dismissed the state's writ appeals due to excessive delay, prompting the government to approach the Supreme Court.

The state contended that under the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, only a portion of job contract service necessary to qualify for pension should be counted. However, a previous ruling by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in Nityanand Biswal v. State of Odisha had erroneously directed that the entire period of service be considered, leading to a legal conflict.

The Supreme Court noted that the Odisha government displayed "extreme carelessness and lethargic approach" in filing appeals. It stated, "The delay caused by them is inexcusable. Nevertheless, we have heard these matters considering their larger impact."

The Court distinguished between work-charged employees and job contract employees, holding that the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992 explicitly differentiated between the two categories. The Bench observed, "Work-charged employees, upon regularization, may be entitled to have their entire service counted for pension, but the same does not apply to job contract employees." The Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that allowed full-service period calculation, ruling that the classification was rational and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and reinstating the state's position that only a portion of job contract service should be counted for pension eligibility. However, in a strong message to the government, the Court imposed a cost of ₹1,50,000 per affected employee in cases where the state had filed belated appeals.

The Court directed the Odisha government to deposit the costs within four weeks, warning that the judgment "shall not be made effective until the payment is completed." The Court also granted the state an opportunity to file review petitions in cases where its appeals had been dismissed due to delay.

This judgment serves as a strong reminder to state governments that procedural delays will not be tolerated, especially in matters affecting public employees and state finances. The Supreme Court’s firm stance reinforces the principle that government inefficiency cannot be allowed to undermine judicial discipline or burden taxpayers.

Date of Decision: February 21, 2025