Cuttack: The Supreme Court has ordered the reinstatement of a judicial officer from Odisha, holding that once an order of compulsory retirement is quashed, the officer must be treated as continuing in service.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order recently while deciding an appeal filed by judicial officer Sanjay Kumar Sahoo against a July 11, 2025 verdict of the Orissa high court.The high court had set aside a March 11, 2022 notification issued by the Odisha govt compulsorily retiring Sahoo at the age of 55. However, it had directed a fresh administrative review of his service record and denied him immediate reinstatement or financial benefits.However, the apex court said such an approach was legally untenable. “Once the compulsory retirement order is set aside, the natural consequence is restoration of service,” the bench observed, adding that keeping the officer out of service while ordering reconsideration creates a “contradictory situation.Accordingly, in the April 7 judgment, a web copy of which was released on April 22, the bench directed that Sahoo be reinstated forthwith and paid all monetary benefits from the date of his retirement, subject to the final outcome of the fresh decision to be taken by the high court’s full court.Sahoo, who joined the judicial service in 1997 as a civil judge (junior division), was promoted over the years and elevated as district judge in 2015. He was further promoted to district judge (selection grade) in Jan 2021. At the time of his compulsory retirement, he was serving as a family court judge in Nabarangpur.The high court had noted that earlier allegations against Sahoo had been dropped and were within the knowledge of the administrative committees when his promotion was approved in 2021. It found no apparent change in circumstances to justify the subsequent decision to retire him prematurely and ordered reconsideration.Before the Supreme Court, Sahoo argued that denial of reinstatement after quashing the retirement order deprived him of full relief. The state, however, contended that compulsory retirement is a measure in public interest and not open to detailed judicial scrutiny.Agreeing with the high court on the need for fresh review, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the remand direction, but it set aside the portion denying reinstatement and benefits.
