State Of Odisha vs Rajkishore Baral
2025 Latest Caselaw 10962 Ori

Orissa High Court

State Of Odisha vs Rajkishore Baral on 3 December, 2025

Bench: K.R. Mohapatra, Savitri Ratho

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 W.A. No. 1647 of 2022
                 1. State of Odisha, represented through
                    its Secretary, Water Resources
                    Department, Bhubaneswar
                 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources
                    Department, Bhubaneswar
                 3. Superintending Engineer, Central
                    Irrigation Circle, Bhubaneswar
                 4. Executive Engineer, Nimapara
                    Irrigation Division, Nimapara, Puri ....          Appellants
                                                    Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal,
                                                 Additional Standing Counsel
                                           -versus-
                 Rajkishore Baral                           ....     Respondent

                                          Mr. Laxmikanta Mohanty, Advocate
                     CORAM:
                        JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                        JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

                                      ORDER

Order No.                            03.12.2025


   02.      1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Laxmikanta Mohanty, learned counsel for the Respondent in Court today by taking consent from the previous counsel. The same is taken on record.

3. This is an application for condonation of delay of 40 days in filing the writ appeal as pointed out by the S.R.

4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Respondent does not have any objection to the prayer for condonation of delay. He,

however, submits that writ appeals involving similar issue has already been disposed of.

5. Hence, by condoning the delay, the writ appeal may be taken up for final disposal.

6. In view of the above, the delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned.

7. The I.A. is disposed of.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

03. 1. Order dated 22nd September, 2022 (Annexure-1) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC (OAC) No. 2861 of 2018 is under challenge in this Intra-Court Appeal.

2. Learned Single Judge in order under Annexure-1 relying upon the judgment dated 11th June, 2009 passed in O.A. No.1189 (C) of 2006 passed by Odisha Administrative Tribunal, in the case of Narusu Pradhan vs. State of Odisha and others held that the Respondent (Applicant therein) being on similar footing is entitled to all the service benefits extended to Narasu Pradhan and also directed to release the consequential as well as differential benefits as due and admissible to the Respondent within a period of four months from the date of communication of the impugned order. The judgment dated 11th June, 2009 passed in Narusu Pradhan (supra) directing to regularize the services of the Applicant therein

in any vacant post after the completion of five years as work- charged employee, to grant him notional increment as due from time to time and to release all the retiral benefits, was challenged by the State of Odisha in WP(C) No. 5377 of 2010, which was dismissed vide order dated 19th December, 2011.

3. The State of Odisha being not satisfied preferred SLP(C) No. 22498 of 2012 which was also dismissed on 7th January, 2013. Thereafter, the State implemented the judgment passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by extending all the benefits and releasing retiral benefit to said Narusu Pradhan vide office order No.2858 dated 9th May, 2013. Learned counsel for the Respondents also drew attention of this Court to orders passed in similar such cases, wherein the Respondents therein have already received retiral benefits after dismissal of the SLP(C)s filed by the State of Odisha before Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. In view of the above, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Writ Appeal merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed.

5. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel does not dispute the factual as well as legal position. It is his submission that in similar such cases, after dismissal of the SLP(C)s/Appeals by the Hon'ble Supreme Court filed by the State Government, the order of the Tribunal has already been implemented by releasing pensionary benefit in respect of the Respondents therein.

6. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the parties that recently, i.e., on 24th July, 2025, a batch of similar Appeals preferred by the State Government, have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Writ Appeal merits no consideration as similarly situated employees have already been extended with benefit of regularization in service and release of pensionary benefit in their favour. No material contrary to such direction/action of the State Government has been placed before us to take a different view.

8. Accordingly, taking into consideration of the fact that the direction in the case of Narusu Pradhan (supra) has already been implemented and the Respondent stands on a similar footing, the Respondent herein deserves the same treatment.

9. Since the Respondent is fighting out litigation since 2018 for his regularization, notional benefits as well as pensionary benefit, in terms of the direction in WPC (OAC) No. 2861 of 2018 is expected to be extended to the Respondent within a period of four months hence.

10. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

Sukanta

Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 05-Dec-2025 10:46:07