[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ranjita Jena vs State Of Odisha And on 12 December, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22956 of 2024
Ranjita Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and
Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 12.12.2025
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging the impugned order dated 13.08.2024, so
passed by the Govt.-O.P. No.1 under Annexure-11.
Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner for extension
of the benefit of pension and by treating the petitioner
to have retired from regular establishment prior to his
retirement under OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 was
rejected.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was
engaged as a NMR in the establishment of Opp. Party
No.3. It is contended that even though petitioner was
// 2 //
engaged as a NMR w.e.f. 01.04.1983, but in terms of
the finance department Resolution issued on
15.05.1997 under Annexure-3, no step was taken to
regularize him in his services. Not only that on the face
of such long continuance, petitioner's claim was also
not considered for absorption in the regular
establishment in the light of the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State
of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3),(2006) 4 SCC-1.
4.1. However, in the meantime vide order dated
23.04.2010 so issued under Annexure-4, petitioner was
brought over to the work charge establishment as
against the post of Khalasi. While so continuing in the
work charge establishment, petitioner retired from
services on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f.
30.06.2020 in terms of order dated 23.04.2010 so
issued under Annexure-4.
4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
even though petitioner continued as a NMR w.e.f.
01.04.1983 and in the work charge establishment as a
Khalasi w.e.f. 23.04.2010 and retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2020,
but no step was ever taken to regularize him in his
services for the purpose of sanction of pension and
other pensionary benefits under OCS(Pension) Rules,
1992.
// 3 //
4.3. It is contended that seeking his absorption in the
regular establishment for the purpose of sanction of
pension and other pensionary benefits, petitioner
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20605 of
2023. This Court vide order dated 13.06.2023 under
Annexure-7, when permitted the petitioner to make a
fresh representation before Opp. Party No.1 for its
consideration in the light of the order passed by the
Tribunal in O.A. No.606 of 2015 decided on 05.07.2018
(Sarbeswar Bhujabala Vrs. State of Odisha and
Others), petitioner made a detailed Representation
under Annexure-5.
4.4. However, such claim of the petitioner was rejected
vide order dated 30.06.2020 under Annexure-6.
Petitioner accordingly challenging such order,
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.2522 of
2024. This Court while quashing order dated
05.06.2024, disposed of the Writ Petition vide order
dated 13.06.2023 under Annexure-7 and directed Opp.
Party No.1 to take a fresh decision taking into account
the decision in the case of Sarbeswar Bhujabala as
well as Khageswar Jena Vs. State of Odisha and
Others (W.P.(C) No.29993 of 2022), disposed of on
18.11.2022.
4.5. It is contended that on the face of such order
passed by this Court on the 2nd occasion under
// 4 //
Annexure-7, petitioner's claim was rejected vide the
impugned order dated 26.06.2023 under Annexure-8.
4.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
order passed by this Court in the case of Khageswar
Jena in the meantime has been upheld by the Hon'ble
Apex Court while dealing with a batch of Special Leave
Petition in S.L.P(Civil) Diary NO.33400 of 2023 and
batch, decided on 24.07.2025(State of Odisha and
Others Vrs. G. Balakrishna and Others.
4.7. It is also contended that even though claim of the
petitioner on the face of the order passed by this Court
under Annexure-7 was rejected vide the impugned
order, similar order passed in respect of similarly
situated employee in W.P.(C) No.97 of 2024 (Kailash
Chandra Panda Vs. State of Odisha and Others)
was allowed by the Govt. by creating a supernumerary
Group-D Post of Khalasi vide order dated 18.10.2025.
(Copy of the order dated 18.10.2025, so produced in
Court be kept in record).
4.8. Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly
contended that since order passed by this Court in the
case of Khageswar Jena as cited (supra) after being
confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Odisha and Others Vs. G. Balakrishna vide
judgment dated 24.07.2025, rejection of the petitioner's
// 5 //
claim on the ground indicated in the impugned order,
is no more sustainable.
4.9. It is also contended that after dismissal of the SLP
in the case of G. Balakrishna as cited (supra), State is
in the process to implement the order passed by this
Court in different Writ Petition including the Writ
Petition in the case of Khageswar Jena. It is
accordingly contended that the rejection of the
petitioner's claim is not sustainable in the eye of law.
5. Even though notice of the Writ Petition has been
issued since 23.09.2024, but no counter affidavit has
been filed as yet. However, basing on the available
materials, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended
that since petitioner prior to his retirement, never made
any claim to get the benefit of regularisation and
consequential sanction of pension and pensionary
benefits, and such a claim was only made in the year
2023, by filing W.P.(C) No.20605 of 2023, petitioner is
not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of
regularization for the purpose of getting the benefit of
pension and other pensionary benefits.
5.1. It is further contended that since claim of the
petitioner on the face of the order passed by this Court
on 2 (two) occasions, has been rejected and last such
rejection is under Annexure-8, no illegality or
irregularity can be found with the same. It is
// 6 //
accordingly contended that the impugned order has
been rightly passed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds that
petitioner was engaged as a NMR in the establishment
of Opp. Party No.3 on 01.04.1983. On the face of his
continuance w.e.f. 01.04.1983, no step was taken by
the State to regularize him in the services in terms of
the stipulation contained in Finance Department
Resolution dated 15.05.1997 and so also decision in
the case of Uma Devi as cited (supra). Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Uma Devi in Para-44 has held as
follows:-
"44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be
cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments)
as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa
(supra) and B.N. Nagarajan (Supra), and referred to in
paragraph-15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly
sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the
employees have continued to work for ten years or more but
without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The
question of regularization of the services of such employees
may have to be considered on merits in the light of the
principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to
and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of
India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities
should take steps to regularize as a one- time measure, the
services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for
ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover
// 7 //
of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure
that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant
sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where
temporary employees or daily wages are being now employed.
The process must be set in motion within six months from this
date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made,
but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this
judgement, but there should be no further by passing of the
constitutional requirement and regularizing or making
permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional
scheme."
6.1. However, petitioner vide order dated 23.04.2010
was brought over to the work charge establishment and
while continuing as such, he retired from services on
attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2020.
After his retirement from service, petitioner raised his
claim to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary
benefits with due absorption in the regular
establishment. Such claim of the petitioner when was
not considered, he approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C) NO.20605 of 2023.
6.2. This Court when directed for consideration of his
claim, the same was rejected vide order dated
30.12.2023 under Annexure-6. Order passed on
05.01.2024 when was challenged by the petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.2522 of 2024, this Court while quashing the
said order, again directed Opp. Party No.1 to consider
the claim of the petitioner in the light of the order
// 8 //
passed in the case of Sarbeswar Bhujabala as well as
Khageswar Jena.
6.3. It is found that the order passed by this Court in
the case of Khageswar Jena and similar writ petitons
has been upheld by the Apex Court along with similar
order in a batch of Civil Appeals in State of Odisha
and Others Vs. G. Balakrishna (Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Dairy No.33400 of 2023 and batch,
disposed of on 24.07.2025).
6.4. After such dismissal of the batch of Civil Appeals,
State is now in the process to extend the benefit in
favour of those employees. It is also found that similar
order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.97 of 2024
has been implemented by the Govt. vide order dated
18.10.2025. Taking into account the benefit extended
in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.97 of 2024 and
confirmation of the order passed by this Court in the
case of Khageswar Jena by the Apex Court in the case
of G. Balakrishna and Others, this Court is of the
view that the ground on which petitioner's claim vide
the impugned order under Annexure-8 has been
rejected, is not sustainable in the eye of law.
6.5. Therefore, while quashing order dated 20.07.2024
under Annexure-8, this Court directs O.P.No.1 to
extend the benefit as due and admissible in the light of
the order passed in the case of Khageswar Jena so
// 9 //
confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of G.
Balakrishna and Others. This Court directs O.P. No.1
to do the needful and complete the entire exercise with
regard to absorption in the regular establishment and
release of pension and other pensionary benefits,
within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of
receipt of this order.
7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
