[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Krishna Chandra Sahu vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 16 December, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.31767 of 2025
Krishna Chandra Sahu .... Petitioner
Mr. S.C. Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
16.12.2025
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Pursuant to the order dtd.08.12.2025, learned
Addl. Government Advocate produced the instruction so
provided by the Superintending Engineer, MI Division,
Jeypore. The same be kept in record.
4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to:-
1). direct the opp. parties to regularise the petitioner in
service for a day prior to his superannuation notionally
and grant pension and pensionary benefits under the
old rule taking into consideration his initial appointment
01.03.1987 in the light of the decision of this Hon'ble
court in W.P.(C) No.29993 of 2022; Khageswar Jena v.
State of Odisha & others vide order dated 18.11.2022,
// 2 //
which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme court
in SLP(C) Diary No. 12669 of 2024, decided on
24.07.2025 as well as the benefits given to similarly
situated persons and thereby quash the order dated
26.08.2025 vide Annexure-7;
ii). Pass such other order/direction(s) as would be deem
fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice;
And for which act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty
bound shall ever pray."
5. It is contended that claim of the Petitioner
pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court in
W.P.(C) No.31376 of 2024 was rejected vide the impugned
order dtd.26.08.2025 under Annexure-7.
5.1. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing as
a NMR in MI Division, Jeypore w.e.f. 01.03.1987 was
brought over to the worked charged establishment as a
Mate w.e.f. 22.01.2010. However, while continuing as
such in the work-charged establishment, he retired from
service on attaining the age of superannuation on
30.06.2022.
5.2. It is contended that, even though Petitioner prior to
his retirement had moved the authorities time and again
seeking his regularization, but the same was never
considered. Accordingly, after his retirement, Petitioner
again raised his claim to get the benefit of absorption in
the regular establishment for the purpose of getting the
benefit of pension & pensionary benefits under the OCS
(Pension) Rules, 1992. As the same was not considered,
he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.31376 of
// 3 //
2024. This Court vide order dtd.02.01.2025 directed
Opposite Party No.1, to consider the Petitioner's claim in
the light of the orders passed by this Court in the case of
Pradip Kumar Panigrahi vs. State of Orissa & Ors.
But without proper appreciation of the Petitioner's claim
and the decision rendered in the case of Pradip Kumar
Panigrahi, claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the
impugned order dtd.26.08.2025 under Annexure-7.
5.3. It is however contended that in view of the recent
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Odisha & Ors. G. Balakrishna, wherein similar claim
allowed by this Court in the case of Khageswar Jena
and in other Writ Petitions have been upheld, the ground
on which claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the
impugned order dtd.26.08.2025 under Annexure-7, is no
more sustainable and it requires interference of this
Court.
6. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State basing on the instruction on the
other hand contended that since Petitioner during his
entire service career never raised a claim to get the
benefit of absorption in the regular establishment and
such a claim was made after his retirement on
30.06.2022, Petitioner's claim has been rightly rejected
vide the impugned order dtd.26.08.2025 under
Annexure-7.
// 4 //
6.1. It is also contended that such a rejection has been
made, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1915 -1917 of 2003,
dtd.02.03.2006.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties and considering the submissions made, it is
found that Petitioner was engaged as a NMR in the
establishment of Opposite Party No.5 w.e.f. 01.03.1987.
On the face of such continuance as a NMR, Petitioner
was never absorbed in the regular establishment, on the
face of the resolution issued by the Finance Department
on 15.07.1997 and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Uma Devi. 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 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
// 5 //
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."
7.1. It is also found that Petitioner instead of being
absorbed in the regular establishment was brought over
to the work-charged establishment as a Mate vide order
dtd. 22.01.2010 and while continuing as such, he retired
from his service on attaining the age of superannuation
on 30.06.2022. Since it is not disputed that Petitioner
continued as a NMR w.e.f. 01.03.1987 and in the work-
charged establishment we.f. 22.01.2010 till he retired on
30.06.2022, it is the view of this Court that, claim of the
Petitioner is covered by the decision in the case of
Khageswar Jena so upheld by the Apex Court in the
case of State of Odisha & Ors. vs. G. Balakrishna.
7.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is
inclined to quash order dtd.26.08.2025 so issued under
Annexure-7 by Opposite Party No.5. While quashing the
said order, this Court directs Opposite Party No.5 to pass
a fresh order in the light of the order passed in the case
of Khageswar Jena so upheld by the Apex Court in the
case of G. Balakrishna & Ors. Petitioner is directed to
provide a copy of this order along with the order passed
in the case of Khageswar Jena and G. Balakrishna &
Ors. before Opposite Party No.1 for compliance. Opposite
Party No.1 is directed to pass a fresh order within a
// 6 //
period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this
order.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Subrat Judge
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
