Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Parsuram Pradhan on 14 October, 2025
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra, Savitri Ratho
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Oct-2025 13:10:18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. NO. 1806 OF 2022
1. State of Odisha, represented
through Secretary to Govt.,
Water Resources Department
2. Engineer-in-chief, Water
Resources Department
3. Chief Engineer and Basin
Manager, Angul
4. Executive Engineer, Rengali
Dam Division, Angul .... Appellants
Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal,
Additional Standing Counsel
-versus-
Parsuram Pradhan .... Respondent
Mr. Indramani Sahoo, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 14.10.2025
03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Order dated 16th September, 2022 (Annexure-1) passed by
learned Single Judge in WPC (OAC) No. 2565 of 2014 is under
challenge in this Intra-Court Appeal.
2.1. 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 Narasu 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
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Oct-2025 13:10:18
months from the date of communication of the impugned order.
The judgment dated 11th June, 2009 passed in Narasu 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 W.P.(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 Narasu Pradhan vide office order
No.2858 dated 9th May, 2013. Learned counsel for the Respondent
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. Sahoo, 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.
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Oct-2025 13:10:18
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 Narasu 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 litigations since 2014
for his regularization, notional benefits as well as pensionary
benefit, in terms of the direction in WPC(OAC) No. 2565 of 2014
is expected to be extended to the Respondent within a period of
four months hence.
10. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
11. Interim order dated 12th April, 2023 passed in IA No.4245
of 2022 stands vacated.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Rojalin Judge
