Transferred Judge Entitled To Avail Applicable Post-Retirement Allowances From Parent High Court: Orissa High Court

The High Court was considering a petition raising the issue of entitlement of a retired Judge of the High 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 Bench comprising Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi and Justice Murahari Sri Raman held, “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.”

Senior Advocate Prafulla Kumar Rath represented the Petitioner while Additional Govt. Advocate Satyabrata Mohanty represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Petitioner was elevated as a Judge of the High Court in 2009. He was thereafter transferred to the Calcutta High Court and assumed office in 2022. He demitted office on attaining the age of superannuation on May 20, 2024. 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. The matter was taken up with the State Government for a decision. By order No. 32393 dated July 31, 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.

The Petitioner represented against the omission to extend the remaining benefits. As the grievance remained unaddressed, the writ petition came to be filed challenging the decision of the State Government insofar as it restricted the benefits available to the Petitioner to medical reimbursement alone. The relevant policy framework includes the Home Department notification dated April 24, 2025, issued in pursuance of the directions of the 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.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that a transfer from one High Court to another is an incident of judicial service and 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”, it added.

The Bench stated that 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”, the Bench stated.

Considering that 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 Bench noted that the Apex Court has repeatedly emphasised that such benefits should be extended in accordance with the applicable directions and schemes.

“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”, it stated. The Bench thus clarified that the petitioner was entitled to avail the applicable post-retirement allowances from the State of Odisha through the Court, subject to the condition that he was not receiving the same or similar facilities from the Calcutta High Court or any other High Court.

Decision

Allowing the petition, the Bench set aside the order issued by the Home Department, Government of Odisha, to the extent that it failed to consider and sanction the Petitioner’s claim for post-retirement allowances towards domestic help, driver, secretarial assistance, security and telephone facilities. “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”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Shri Chitta Ranjan Dash v. State of Odisha (Neutral Citation: 2026:OHC:262-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Prafulla Kumar Rath

Opposite Party: Additional Govt. Advocate Satyabrata Mohanty, ASC Manmay Kumar Dash, Senior Advocate Bigyan Kumar Sharma, Advocate Dipti Ranjan Bhokta

Click here to read/download Order