CHITTA RANJAN DASH vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
WP(C)/23072/2025
ODHC010582062025
2026:OHC:262-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.23072 of 2025
CNR No-ODHC010582062025
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Shri Chitta Ranjan Dash …. Petitioner (s)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode :
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Sr. Adv.
along with associates
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, AGA
Mr. Manmay Kumar Dash, ASC
Mr. Bigyan Kumar Sharma, Sr. Adv.
along with associates
Mr. Dipti Ranjan Bhokta, Adv.
CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
DATE OF HEARING:-16.10.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-02.11.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The present Writ Petition raises a question concerning the entitlement
of a retired Judge of this Court, who was subsequently transferred to
another High Court and retired from there, to post-retirement
allowances from the High Court to which he was initially appointed.
The immediate dispute concerns the expenses towards domestic help,
driver, secretarial assistance, security and telephone facilities. The
Signature Not Verified
Page 1
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34
Petitioner seeks parity in the matter of these benefits with other retired
Judges of this Court, contending that the State cannot segregate his
entitlement confining to medical facilities from his parent High Court
while denying the other post-retirement benefits on the ground that he
retired from the Calcutta High Court.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2.
The Petitioner was elevated as a Judge of this Court on 7 October 2009.
He was thereafter transferred to the Calcutta High Court by notification
dated 1.6.2022 and assumed office there on 20.6.2022. He demitted
office on attaining the age of superannuation on 20.5.2024.
3. Before his retirement, the Petitioner expressed his desire to avail his
post-retirement benefits, including medical facilities and allowances
towards domestic help and other services, from his parent High Court,
namely, this Court. The matter was taken up with the State
Government for a decision. By order No. 32393 dated 31.7.2025, issued
by the Home Department, Government of Odisha, the Petitioner was
permitted to avail medical facilities from his parent High Court. The
order, however, did not sanction the other allowances claimed by him.
4.
The Petitioner thereafter represented against the omission to extend the
remaining benefits. As the grievance remained unaddressed, the
present writ petition came to be filed challenging the decision of the
State Government insofar as it restricts the benefits available to the
Petitioner to medical reimbursement alone.
5. The relevant policy framework includes the Home Department
notification dated 24.4.2025, issued in pursuance of the directions of the
Signature Not Verified
Page 2
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Under the said notification, a consolidated
amount of ₹ 45,000 per month is provided to a retired Judge or spouse
towards domestic help and driver expenses, while ₹ 15,000 per month
is provided towards telephone, internet, secretarial and security
services, subject to the prescribed conditions. The amounts are subject
to an annual increase of five per cent.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was
initially appointed as a Judge of this Court and continues to be entitled
to the post-retirement benefits available to retired Judges of this Court.
His subsequent transfer to the Calcutta High Court, according to the
Petitioner, does not extinguish his entitlement to elect the parent High
Court from which to avail the benefits.
7. It is contended that the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Justice V.S. Dave, President, Association of Retired Judges of
1
Supreme Court and High Courts v. Kusumjit Sidhu and Others , must
be read as a whole. The directions concerning domestic help, drivers,
telephone reimbursement and other benefits are distinct from those
relating to medical reimbursement. The clarification issued on 15.4.2025
recognises that, in the case of a Judge transferred from one High Court
to another, the concerned State Government may be the State where the
Judge was first appointed or the State from which the Judge retired.
8.
Learned counsel further submits that the State itself, through its
notification dated 24.4.2025, has made the availability of the facilities
1
(
in Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 425–426 of 2015 in W.P. (C) No. 523 of 2002)
Signature Not Verified
Page 3
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34
conditional upon the retired Judge not availing the same or similar
facilities from another High Court. The condition, according to the
Petitioner, is directed against the duplication of benefits and not against
a Judge who elects to receive the benefits from his parent High Court.
The Petitioner having opted for this Court and having been granted
medical facilities by the State, the remaining benefits cannot be denied
solely on the basis of the place of his retirement.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
9. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the Petitioner
retired from the Calcutta High Court and, therefore, cannot claim the
benefits under the Odisha scheme, which is framed for retired Chief
Justices and Judges of the Orissa High Court. It is submitted that the
order dated 15.4.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was a
clarification concerning the State responsible for medical
reimbursement and does not expressly direct that all other post-
retirement allowances must also be paid by the parent High Court.
10.
The State relies upon the notification dated 24.4.2025 and the earlier
departmental orders governing the grant of post-retirement
allowances. It is contended that the eligibility conditions under the
notification do not extend the benefits to a Judge who retired from
another High Court. The State also refers to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court dated 31.3.2014 in P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of
India , Civil Appeal Nos. 4248–4249 of 2014 and connected matters,
submitting that the observations therein do not confer an enforceable
right to claim every category of allowance from the parent High Court.
Signature Not Verified
Page 4
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34
IV. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION:
11. In view of the rival submissions, the solitary issue that arises for
consideration is:
Whether the Petitioner, having been initially appointed as a Judge
of this Court and having elected to avail his post-retirement
benefits from this Court, is entitled to claim the allowances
towards domestic help, driver, secretarial assistance, security and
telephone facilities from the State of Odisha, notwithstanding
that he retired from the Calcutta High Court?
12. The issue must be examined in the light of the directions issued by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time, the object underlying those
directions, and the terms of the State’s own notification. The orders
cannot be read in isolation or in a manner that renders one part of the
scheme inconsistent with the object of the directions as a whole.
13. This Court also considers it apposite to preface the discussion by
reproducing the relevant paragraphs of this Court’s judgment in Orissa
High Court Retired Judges’ Association & Anr. v. Union of India &
2
Ors. where this Hon’ble Court was pleased to hold that:
“10. It is needless to mention here that during the tenure as
a sitting Judge, the pay scales and other allowances are
almost equal all over the country and the services of judges
are governed in equal manner. Therefore, after the
retirement, it would be feasible for all the State Governments
to extend the facilities such as medical facilities,
orderly/domestic help allowance, telephone charges to the
retired Judges of the High Courts throughout the country
uniformly so as to enable them to lead a dignified life after
2
(2012) 114 CLT 560
Signature Not Verified
Page 5
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34
their retirement for the reason that after retirement of a
permanent judge or Chief Justice, there is prohibition for
their practice in the same High Court from which they
retired. Therefore, after the retirement of Judges or Chief
Justices, they are required to be treated with due respect and
the State Governments have got constitutional obligation to
see that they lead a dignified & happy retired life of their
remaining period for having rendered service to the public
litigant and facilitated the State Government for good
governance.
However, from the chart pre-page, it is seen that various
State Governments are providing medical facilities and other
allowances in different manner to the retired High Court
judges of their State. Vide Home Department Letter No.
7056 dated 14.02.2011 the Government of Odisha extended
the medical allowances to the retired Chief Justices and
Judges of this court @ Rs.18,000/- P.A. w.e.f. 14.02.2011,
which is very meager amount taking into consideration of
devaluation of a rupee and cost of the facility. In the old age,
different ailments may be there and it may not be possible to
meet the actual medical expenses with the said amount of
Rs.18,000/- per annum. As it appears from the above chart,
it is a fact that throughout the country uniform medical
facilities are not provided to the retired Judges by the State
Governments and different State Governments are
providing different medical facilities to the retired Judges as
shown in the chart. The Odisha State is coming under the
Eastern region of the country. Therefore, we think it would
be appropriate to direct the Government of Odisha to take
into consideration the medical facilities extended to the
retired Judges by the States coming under the Eastern region
of the country and take a decision in extending the medical
benefits to the members of the petitioner-Association taking
into account the Central Government Health Scheme. We
think, it will be in conformity with Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in catena of cases
Signature Not Verified
Page 6
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34
has held that right to lead a happy life includes the right to
health which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. In the cases of State of Punjab Vs.
Mohinder Singh Chawla, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1225;
and Consumer Education & Research Centre & ors. Vs.
Union of India & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 922, the Supreme
Court has held that right to life includes the right to health.
11. It is an undisputed fact that during incumbency Judges
and Chief Justices of the High Courts lead a distinct lifestyle
being provided with many facilities and assistance including
telephone facilities. Immediately after retirement if all those
facilities are withdrawn, it will be definitely difficult on the
part of a retired Judge to lead a dignified and happy life
without proper assistance from the State Government as it is
its constitutional function. Therefore, in our view
order/domestic assistance as well as telephone facility is also
the basic requirement of a retired Judge for decent living. To
maintain a good healthy life after retirement as a Judge the
minimum requirement is to see that proper medical facilities
are provided by the State Government to lead a healthy and
happy life during old age, domestic help/assistance is
required to assist in the day to day work, and telephone
facilities/allowance as an emergency service required for
them. These three assistance are very much essential to a
person who has already led a dignified life and retired from
the post and at this stage it is the duty of the State
Government to provide the above facilities to the retired
Judges in the State. Therefore, taking into consideration of
all the aforesaid aspects, the State Government is hereby
directed to modify the order dated 14.2.2011 under
Annexure-3 accordingly and further to provide telephone
allowance taking into account such facility/allowance
extended by the other States under the Eastern region of the
country by framing necessary Rules and guidelines as early
as possible, preferably within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, such
Signature Not Verified
Page 7
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34
facilities and allowance shall not be made available to the
retired Judge if he/she is getting such benefit by virtue of
holding any assignment/post/commission etc.”
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 31.3.2014 in P.
3
Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India , while considering the question
of post-retirement benefits, observed in paragraphs 33 and 34 as
follows:
“33. It is brought to our notice that in pursuance of the said
Resolution, most of the States in the country have extended
various post-retiral benefits to the retired Chief Justices and
retired judges of the respective High Courts. By
G.O.Ms.No. 28 dated 16.03.2012 issued by Law
Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh sanctioned an
amount of Rs.14,000/- per month to the retired Chief
justices of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and an
amount of Rs.12,000/- per month to the retired judges of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh for defraying the services of
an orderly, driver, security guard etc. and for meeting
expenses incurred towards secretarial assistance on contract
basis and a residential telephone free of cost with number of
free calls to the extent of 1500 per month over and above the
number of free calls per month allowed by the telephone
authorities to both the retired Chief justices and judges of
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 01.04.2012.
34.While appreciating the steps taken by the Government of
Andhra Pradesh and other States who have already
formulated such scheme, by this order, we hope and trust
that the States who have not so far framed such scheme will
formulate the same, depending on the local conditions, for
the benefit of the retired Chief Justices and retired Judges of
the respective High Courts as early as possible preferably
3
Civil Appeal Nos. 4248–4249 of 2014 and connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Page 8
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy
of this order.”
15.
The aforesaid observations placed the question of post-retirement
allowances in the broader context of facilities for retired Judges and
encouraged States to formulate appropriate schemes. While the
judgment, by itself, did not prescribe a uniform amount payable by
every State, the subsequent orders in the contempt proceedings
addressed implementation of the Andhra Pradesh model and the need
to extend the corresponding facilities across States.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 23.2.2017 in Contempt
Petition (Civil) Nos. 425–426 of 2015 in W.P. (C) No. 523 of 2002,
recorded that the States of Jharkhand, Odisha and Himachal Pradesh
had sanctioned allowances under the Andhra Pradesh model with
effect from 1 October 2014. The Court thereafter directed:
“Taking note of the above, we close all these matters with a
direction that all the States will adhere to the payment of
allowance on the Andhra Pradesh Model with effect from
1st October, 2014. All amounts due in terms of the present
order and the orders passed in the matters from time to time
will be paid as expeditiously as possible.”
17. The direction is material for two reasons. First, the allowances towards
domestic help, drivers, security and telephone facilities were not
treated as merely discretionary or incidental benefits but they formed
the subject of directions requiring compliance by the States. Secondly,
the State of Odisha has itself recorded as having sanctioned allowances
as per the Andhra Pradesh model. The consequential question is
Signature Not Verified
Page 9
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34
therefore not whether Odisha may frame a scheme for such allowances,
but whether the eligibility criteria under its scheme can be applied to
exclude the Petitioner solely because he retired from another High
Court.
18.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 1.5.2017 in I.A. No. 11 of
2017 in the same contempt proceedings, while dealing specifically with
domestic help and telephone allowance, held:
“Insofar as prayer (a) above is concerned, the relief prayed
for is covered by the directions issued in paragraph 4 of the
order of this Court dated 23rd February, 2017 passed in
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 425-426 of 2015 in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 523 of 2002. The State of Himachal
Pradesh is directed to pay the allowances as per the Andhra
Pradesh Model with effect from 1st October, 2014 to the
applicant(s) and all other retired judges of the High Court
forthwith if the same has not been paid.”
19. The order confirms that the directions concerning the Andhra Pradesh
model extend specifically to domestic help and telephone allowances.
The issue before this Court is not one of creating a new benefit but of
determining the State from which an eligible retired Judge may claim
the benefits already recognised under the applicable scheme.
20. The position was reiterated in the order dated 18.2.2025 passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the same contempt proceedings. After
dealing with medical facilities and reimbursement, the Court
separately adverted to the earlier order concerning domestic help and
telephone reimbursement. Paragraphs 13 and 14 read as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Page 10
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34
“13. We are informed that on 1st May, 2017, an order has
been passed by this Court dealing with the issue of
domestic help and telephone bill reimbursement. Even
compliance with this order shall be reported as directed
above.
14. We make it clear that the said order clarifies that the
facilities available to the retired Judges in the State of
Andhra Pradesh shall be extended to all the retired Judges
in all other States and Union Territories. If after the said
order, the Andhra Pradesh Government is giving better
facilities to the retired Judges in the State, it follows that
even other States must also extend the same facilities.”
21. The significance of these paragraphs lies in the express treatment of
domestic help and telephone reimbursement as a separate aspect of
compliance. The direction to extend the Andhra Pradesh facilities to
retired Judges in other States cannot be confined to medical
reimbursement alone. The State is, therefore, required to consider the
Petitioner’s claim under the applicable scheme in the light of the
directions governing these allowances as well.
22. The question of the appropriate State in cases of transfer was
specifically considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated
15.4.2025 in the same proceedings. The Court noted that Judges may be
appointed in one High Court and retire from another High Court
following transfer. The relevant clarification reads:
“When we say the concerned State Government, it will be
the State Government where the seat of the High Court is
situated in which the retired Judge was firstly appointed
or the State Government where the seat of the High Court
is situated from which the learned Judge has retired.”
Signature Not Verified
Page 11
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34
23. The clarification is of particular relevance to the present case. It
recognises two possible connecting High Courts for identifying the
concerned State Government: the High Court in which the Judge was
first appointed and the High Court from which the Judge retired. The
Petitioner falls squarely within the class of Judges contemplated by the
clarification, having been first appointed to this Court and thereafter
transferred to the Calcutta High Court.
24. The State is correct to point out that the clarification dated 15.4.2025
arose in the context of paragraph 9 of the order dated 18.2.2025, which
dealt with reimbursement for medical treatment. It would not be
appropriate to hold that the clarification, read in isolation, expressly
adjudicates every question concerning each category of post-retirement
allowance.
25. However, that is not the end of the matter. The clarification must be
read alongside the distinct directions concerning domestic help,
drivers, telephone and other benefits, including the direction dated
18.2.2025 that the Andhra Pradesh model be extended to retired Judges
across the country. The combined effect of the orders is to recognise that
the State connected with the Judge’s first appointment may be the
concerned State Government; the clarification does not restrict that
principle to the place of retirement alone.
26. The subsequent order dated 29.4.2025 further demonstrates that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court continued to treat the relevant benefits as a
distinct category of compliance. In that order, the Court identified the
directions requiring compliance, including:
Signature Not Verified
Page 12
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34
“Direction No. 6: Domestic Help(s)/Driver, Telephone
and other benefits in line with the benefits granted by the
State of Andhra Pradesh, and improved from time to
time.”
The inclusion of this direction alongside the directions concerning
medical treatment, reimbursement and cashless facilities reinforces the
distinction between the different categories of post-retirement benefits.
The State cannot, therefore, answer the claim for domestic help and
other allowances merely by pointing out that the order dated 15.4.2025
arose in the context of medical reimbursement.
27.
The above position must now be considered alongside the Home
Department notification dated 24.4.2025. The notification provides a
consolidated monthly amount towards domestic help and driver
expenses and a further amount towards telephone, internet, secretarial
and security services. It also prescribes the following eligibility
condition:
“ The facility of Domestic Help(s), Driver(s), Secretarial
Assistance, Security and Telephone facility shall be
provided to the retired Chief Justice/Judge of the Orissa
High Court or their spouse, if he/she is not availing such
or similar facility from any other High Court.”
28. The condition is significant. It does not expressly state that a Judge who
was initially appointed to the Orissa High Court but retired from
another High Court shall, for that reason alone, stand excluded from
the scheme. Instead, it makes non-availment of the same or similar
facility from another High Court a condition for receiving the benefit.
Signature Not Verified
Page 13
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34
The evident purpose of this stipulation is to prevent duplication of
facilities. It cannot reasonably be read as automatically disqualifying a
transferred Judge who elects to receive the benefits from the High
Court to which he was first appointed, particularly when the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has expressly recognised that the concerned State may
be either the State of first appointment or the State of retirement.
29. The State’s interpretation would result in a transferred Judge being
recognised as entitled to medical facilities from the parent High Court,
but being denied the remaining post-retirement allowances by that
very High Court solely because he retired elsewhere. No such
categorical exclusion is apparent from the language of the notification.
Nor has any intelligible differentia been demonstrated to justify
treating a Judge initially appointed to this Court differently from other
retired Judges of this Court, where the former has elected to avail the
benefits here and does not draw the same or similar benefits from
another High Court.
30.
The Petitioner has elected to avail his post-retirement benefits from this
Court. The State has accepted that election to the extent of medical
facilities. The same choice cannot be rejected in respect of the remaining
benefits without a clear basis in the applicable scheme. The condition
relating to non-availment of similar benefits from another High Court
is capable of being applied to the Petitioner in a manner consistent with
both the notification and the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Such an interpretation gives effect to the scheme while preventing
double benefits. A narrower construction, based solely on the fact of
Signature Not Verified
Page 14
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34
retirement from the Calcutta High Court, would introduce a
disqualification that the notification does not expressly provide and
would be inconsistent with the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s clarification
recognising the State of first appointment as a concerned State
Government.
31.
A transfer from one High Court to another is an incident of judicial
service. It does not erase the years spent serving the High Court to
which the Judge was initially appointed, nor does it sever the
institutional association that arose from such appointment. A Judge
who has served in more than one High Court has, in fact, discharged
judicial responsibilities in each of them. It would, therefore, require a
clear provision in the governing scheme before the mere circumstance
of retirement from the transferee High Court could be treated as
sufficient to extinguish the claim to facilities from the parent High
Court.
32. There is also a practical aspect which cannot be overlooked. A Judge
does not ordinarily choose the place of transfer in the same manner in
which an individual chooses a place of employment or residence. A
transfer is governed by the requirements of the institution and the
constitutional framework governing the judiciary. It would be difficult
to justify a construction under which a Judge, having served this Court
for several years, loses access to the post-retirement scheme of this State
merely because the exigencies of judicial administration resulted in his
transfer to another High Court. Such a consequence ought not to be
Signature Not Verified
Page 15
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34
attributed to the policy unless its language clearly compels that
interpretation.
33. The requirement that a retired Judge should not be availing the same
or similar facilities from another High Court provides a workable
safeguard. It enables the State to verify whether the benefit is already
being received elsewhere and to prevent any duplication. The object of
the condition can thus be fully achieved without excluding a
transferred Judge altogether. The administration of a welfare scheme
must be guided by its purpose. Where two interpretations are possible,
the one which advances that purpose, while preserving the safeguards
expressly prescribed, deserves to be preferred over an interpretation
which introduces an exclusion not found in the text.
34. It is also important to remember that the facilities in question are not
being sought outside the framework of any existing policy. The State
has already recognised these categories of assistance and prescribed the
amounts payable. The Petitioner is not asking this Court to create a new
allowance, determine a new rate or impose an unprovided financial
obligation upon the State.
35. The State’s reliance on the absence of an earlier instance in which
similar benefits were extended to a Judge transferred from the Orissa
High Court to another High Court and retired therefrom cannot, by
itself, determine the question of entitlement. The issue must be decided
on the language of the applicable notification and the governing
directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Administrative novelty
cannot substitute for an examination of the legal position.
Signature Not Verified
Page 16
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34
36. The nature of the benefits also deserves notice. The allowances in
question are intended to meet the practical requirements of a retired
Judge, including domestic assistance, transport, security, secretarial
services and communication facilities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
repeatedly emphasised that such benefits should be extended in
accordance with the applicable directions and schemes. The purpose
would be defeated if a Judge who is otherwise eligible were denied the
benefits merely because of a transfer during service, despite having
elected to receive them from the parent High Court and subject to the
condition that the same or similar facilities are not availed from another
High Court.
37.
This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the Petitioner’s
claim cannot be rejected on the sole ground that he retired from the
Calcutta High Court. Having regard to the clarification dated 15.4.2025,
the separate directions concerning domestic help and other benefits,
and the terms of the notification dated 24.4.2025, the Petitioner is
entitled to avail the applicable post-retirement allowances from the
State of Odisha through this Court, subject to the condition that he is
not receiving the same or similar facilities from the Calcutta High Court
or any other High Court.
V. CONCLUSION:
38. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The order No.
32393 dated 31.7.2025 issued by the Home Department, Government of
Odisha, is set aside to the extent that it fails to consider and sanction the
Signature Not Verified
Page 17
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34
Petitioner’s claim for post-retirement allowances towards domestic
help, driver, secretarial assistance, security and telephone facilities.
39. The Opposite Parties are directed to extend to the Petitioner the benefits
admissible under the applicable orders and the Home Department
notification dated 24.4.2025, at the rates in force from time to time,
subject to verification that he is not availing the same or similar facilities
from the Calcutta High Court or any other High Court. The arrears
payable, if any, shall be determined in accordance with the applicable
orders and the date from which the relevant benefits became
admissible, and shall be released within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
40.
On a parting note, it would be wise to remember that a Judge, during
the years spent on the Bench, carries a responsibility that is both
demanding and exacting. The work requires long hours, constant
application of mind and an abiding sense of duty towards the
institution and the people who approach it for justice. When such
service comes to an end, the least that can be expected is that the person
who has devoted those years to the institution is able to retire with
dignity and without anxiety over basic necessities.
41. The facilities extended to retired Judges are not favours or concessions.
They are intended to provide some measure of continuity and support
after a lifetime spent in public service. Medical assistance, domestic
help and telephone facilities serve a real and practical purpose in the
post-retirement years. A retired Judge should not have to repeatedly
approach government departments, pursue correspondence or
Signature Not Verified
Page 18
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34
overcome procedural hurdles merely to obtain facilities which the State
has itself recognised as necessary.
42. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the proceedings in Justice V.S.
Dave, President, Association of Retired Judges of Supreme Court and
High Courts v. Kusumjit Sidhu & Ors. (supra), been consistently
addressing this very concern. By its order dated 18.2.2025, it directed
the States and Union Territories to report compliance with its earlier
directions concerning medical facilities, domestic help and telephone
reimbursement. It also called upon the Registrar Generals of the High
Courts to identify cases where retired Judges were facing difficulty in
securing the benefits. More recently, by order dated 20.7.2026, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the continuing differences in
facilities provided by different States and called for the constitution of
a Committee to formulate uniform guidelines. The concern, therefore,
is not merely one of individual entitlement, but of ensuring that the
welfare of retired members of the judiciary is not made dependent
upon the State in which they happened to serve or the administrative
arrangements prevailing there.
43. When the Hon’ble Supreme Court is itself seized of this larger issue and
is taking steps towards ensuring uniformity in the facilities extended to
retired Judges across the country, this Court cannot remain indifferent
to the difficulties arising in the implementation of such benefits within
its own jurisdiction. The endeavour of this Court must be to ensure that
the policies and directions already in place are given meaningful effect
Signature Not Verified
Page 19
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34
and that a retired member of the institution is not left to contend with
avoidable administrative obstacles.
44. There is, of course, a need for rules, eligibility conditions and
safeguards against duplication. But these must serve the administration
of the scheme, not stand in its way. The manner in which an institution
treats those who have served it is also a reflection of the institution
itself. The relationship between the judiciary and its members does not
end on the day a Judge demits office.
45. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as
to costs.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
I agree
Murahari Sri Raman, J.-
(Murahari Sri Raman)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
nd
Dated the 2 Nov., 2026/-
Signature Not Verified
Page 20
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Nov-2026 17:28:34