Emphasising the need to ensure a dignified life to a retired Judge of a Constitutional Court, the Division Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed–

“…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.”

Justice Chitta Ranjan Dash, a former Judge of the Orissa High Court filed the writ petition challenging an order dated 31.07.2025, issued by the Home Department, Government of Odisha, whereby he was permitted to avail medical facilities from his parent High Court (Orissa High Court). The order, however, did not sanction the other allowances admissible to a retired High Court Judge.

Pertinent to note, the petitioner was elevated as a Judge of the Orissa High Court on October 07, 2009. He was thereafter transferred to the Calcutta High Court by notification dated 01.06.2022 and assumed office there on 20.06.2022. He retired from the office on 20.05.2024.

Reliance was placed on a clarification made by the Supreme Court by order dated 15.04.2025 in Justice V.S. Dave, President, Association of Retired Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts v. Kusumjit Sidhu & Ors., wherein it was held 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.

It was argued on the petitioner's behalf that by a notification dated 24.05.2025, the State Government of Odisha has provided the option to a transferred Judge of Orissa High Court to seek retiral benefits from it, if he is not availing the same from the transferred High Court/State.

The State relied upon the same notification and the earlier departmental orders governing the grant of post-retirement allowances to contend that the eligibility conditions under the notification do not extend the benefits to a Judge who retired from another High Court.

The sole question which arose for consideration was whether the petitioner having been initially appointed as a Judge of the Orissa High Court and having elected to avail his post-retirement benefits from his parent Court, is entitled to claim the allowances from the State of Odisha, notwithstanding that he retired from the Calcutta High Court.

The Bench took note of the series of decisions made in Justice V.S. Dave (supra) and P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India, where the Apex Court time and again asked the State Governments to follow uniform criteria to provide benefits to the retired High Court Judges across the country.

It noted that by the aforesaid notification dated 24.05.2025, the State provided a consolidated monthly amount towards domestic help(s), driver(s), secretarial assistance, security and telephone facilities to the retired Chief Justice(s)/Judge(s) of the Orissa High Court or their spouse, if he/she is not availing such or similar facility from any other High Court.

The Court made it abundantly clear that the aforesaid condition cannot be construed to disqualify a Judge of the Orissa High Court from availing benefit merely because he was transferred to another High Court.

The State's interpretation, the Court held, 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 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,” it said.

Coming to the case at hand, it added, "Petitioner's claim cannot be rejected on the sole ground that he retired from the Calcutta High Court...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."

Accordingly, the impugned order issued by the Home Department, Government of Odisha was set aside and it was directed to provide all the benefits admissible to a retired High Court Judge to the petitioner within eight weeks, along with arrears. Before parting, the Court sternly observed–

“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 overcome procedural hurdles merely to obtain facilities which the State has itself recognised as necessary… 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.”

Date of Judgment: November 02, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Senior Advocate with Associates

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate, Mr. Manmay Kumar Dash, Addl. Standing Counsel; Mr. Bigyan Kumar Sharma, Senior Advocate along with associates; Mr. Dipti Ranjan Bhokta, Advocate