Oil India Employees Entitled to Pension Despite No-Pension Clause | HC

Case Details: Bibhuti Bhusan Mohanty vs. Union of India - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 160 (HC-Orissa)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sibo Sankar Mishra, J.
• Budhadev Routray, Sr. Adv. & Jagdish Biswal, Adv. for the Petitioner.
• M.K. Pradhan, Senior Panel Counsel, S. Pattanaik & Darshan Mishra, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, Petitioners were engaged on a temporary basis in Oil India Ltd. before nationalisation under the 1981 Act. They were subsequently absorbed into regular service under fresh appointment letters stipulating that they would not be entitled to a pension.

Petitioners continued in service for over two decades and retired on superannuation. Their claim for a pension under the Oil India Pension Fund/Scheme was rejected on the grounds that they were not members of the Burmah Oil Company Pension Fund before nationalisation and had accepted terms of appointment that disentitled them to a pension.

It was admitted on record that the petitioners satisfied all conditions under Rule 4 for entitlement to a normal pension.

High Court Held

The High Court held that petitioners, having rendered over twenty years of service, notwithstanding technical gaps, were to be treated as continuous employees, and that any condition denying pension contrary to their legal entitlement could not operate as estoppel, since employees had no bargaining power when accepting such terms. Therefore, petitioners were entitled to pensionary and consequential service benefits from the dates of superannuation under the Oil India Pension Fund/Scheme.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Tarun Kanti Sengupta AIR 1986 SC 1571 (para 21) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 43 (para 10)
• Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Tarun Kanti Sengupta AIR 1986 SC 1571 (para 10).