Madhusudan Naik vs State Of Odisha And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5128 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                         W.P.(C) No.6353 of 2022
                                  and
                              batch of cases

                       In W.P.(C) No.6353 of 2022
         Madhusudan Naik                      ....            Petitioner
                                       Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Adv.
                                                Mr. P.K. Behera, Adv.
                                                           Mr. N. Jena
                                  -versus-
         State of Odisha and Ors.             ....     Opposite Parties
                                            Mr. Biplaba Mohanty, SC
                                          (for O.P.1/ S & ME Deptt.)
                                                Mr. B. Routray, Adv.
                                                      (for O.Ps.2 & 3)


                  CORAM:
                  DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order                              ORDER
No.                               26.09.2022
        W.P.(C) Nos.6353, 734, 1784, 1785, 2027, 5007, 6712 & 6714 of
        2022 and 25152, 25155, 25822, 27270, 27411, 27414, 28627, 29717,
        30673, 30680, 30682, 30684, 30685, 32060, 32062, 32444, 32986,
        33358, 33381, 33383, 33386, 33388, 34037, 34040, 34187, 34248,
        34250, 34251, 34252, 34825, 35299, 35301, 35924, 36587, 36590,
        39045, 40167 & 40176 of 2021.
 8.
        1.

These matters are taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. Judgment

prepared in separate sheets is delivered and pronounced

in open Court in the presence of learned counsel for the

parties and the order is passed accordingly as follows:-

// 2 //

3. A bare perusal of the records and the orders of the High

Court and the Supreme Court as quoted above, it

appears that the case of the Petitioner is squarely

covered by the aforesaid orders as the present Petitioner

and the Petitioner there in W.P.(C) No.13035 of 2019

were working in the same establishment i.e. in Board of

Secondary Education, Odisha and the grievance of the

Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13035 of 2019 was that though

he was retired at the age of 60 years, his pensionary

benefit has been calculated upto the age of 58 years.

Moreover, the order dated 07.11.2019 passed in favour

of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13035 of 2019 has been

affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court as well as

the Supreme Court. Therefore, as the benefit has already

been granted to similarly situated employees serving

under the same establishment i.e. the Board of

Secondary Education, Odisha, there is no reason why

the same benefit should not be granted to the present

Petitioner.

4. In such view of the matter, the Writ Petition filed by the

Petitioner is disposed of being allowed.

5. Consequently, all the above-mentioned Writ Petitions

are disposed of being allowed. However, the authorities

// 3 //

shall examine the facts and circumstances of the present

Writ Petitions in the light of the orders of this Court and

the Supreme Court meticulously and if the ratio decided

therein is squarely covered by the cases of the

Petitioners, they shall consider the Petitioners' cases as

expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of

three months from the date of production of a copy of

this judgment.

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

B.Jhankar