[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Adikanda Pradhan vs Skill Development & Technical ..... ... on 9 February, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.4001 of 2026
Adikanda Pradhan ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Manas Pati
-versus-
Skill Development & Technical ..... Opposite Parties
Education Department, Khurda
& others
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
09.02.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the state. Peruse the writ application as well as the
document annexed thereto.
3. By filing the present writ application the Petitioner has made
the following prayer:-
" The Petitioner therefore prays that your lordships
may graciously be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties
more particularly OP-1 & 3 for governing his official
status as a pre-2005 appointee so as to draw the
pensionary benefits under O.C.S. Pension Rule, 1992 and
keeping in view the related Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and thereby the application for
consideration of past services as qualifying service for
the purpose of pension within a stipulated time.
And pass such order/directions as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
initially the Petitioner was appointed as a Gardner on contractual
basis with effect from 27.09.1995. Thereafter, the contractual service
of the Petitioner was being extended from time to time. Finally,
pursuant to an order passed by this Court in an earlier writ
application, the service of the Petitioner was regularised with effect
from 09.02.2016.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended
that though the order passed by this court directing regularization the
service of the Petitioner was challenged by the State-Opposite
Parties by filing the W.A. No.230 of 2016 and W.A. No.234 of
2016. The learned Division Bench dismissed such Writ Appeal of
the State. Being aggrieved by such order passed by the Division
Bench, the State-Opposite Party preferred SLP(C) No.489 of 2022.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order passed by this
Court vide their order dated 17.05.2022. Finally, on 20.08.2022 the
Petitioner was issued with a fresh appointment order. He further
submitted that vide order dated 20.11.2025 the services of the
Petitioner has been regularised with effect from 09.02.2016. He
further contended that while working as such the Petitioner, on
attaining the age of superannuation, has retired from service with
effect from 31.03.2023.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that after
his retirement from the service, the Petitioner approached the
Opposite Parties for grant of pension and pensionary benefits.
However, the same was denied on the ground that the Petitioner was
appointed after the O.C.S. Pension Rule, 1992 was amended in the
year 2005. As such, the Petitioner was denied the benefit of the pre-
amendment rule. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite
Parties the Petitioner has approached this court by filing the present
writ application. In course of his argument learned counsel for the
Petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court S.
D. Jayapakash and Ors. Vrs. The Union of India & Ors. bearing
in SLP (C) Nos.19539-19540 of 2021 vide judgment dated
29.04.2025. By referring to the aforesaid judgment learned counsel
for the Petitioner contended that the service of the Petitioner during
his contractual period should be taken into consideration while
calculating his pensionary benefits as has been laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. In such view of the matter Learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that the Petitioner was entitled to the pensionary benefits
since he was appointed initially on contractual basis in the year
1995. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in The State of H.P. Vrs. Sheela Devi reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1272 in support of his argument in favour of the grant
of the pensionary benefits to the Petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, on
perusal of the writ application, it appears that the Petitioner has not
approached before the Opposite Parties for redressal of his grievance
in accordance with the law. It was contended that the Petitioner
should have approached the concerned Opposite Parties first before
approaching this Court by filing the present writ application. In such
view of the matter the learned counsel for the state is contended that
in the event the Petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite
Parties by filing an appropriate representation and the Opposite
Parties are directed to consider the same strictly in accordance with
law and within a stipulated period of time, he will have no objection
to the same.
10. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties on a careful examination of the
backgrounds facts, further taking note of the limited nature of the
grievance, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition
at the stage by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the
opposite party Nos.1 & 3 by filing a detailed representation within
two weeks from today. Taking therein all the ground along with the
judgments in support of his claim. In such eventually the opposite
party No.1&3 shall do well.
11. Consider such representation of the Petitioner keeping in view
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above
referred judgments and disposed of the representation by passing a
speaking and reasoned order within eight weeks from the date, the
Petitioner approaches the opposite party Nos.1 & 3 and the decision
so taken by the opposite party Nos.1 & 3 be also communicated to
the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
12. With the aforesaid observation/ direction, the writ application
stands disposed of.
13. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Suchitra
Digitally Signed Page 5 of 5.
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 10-Feb-2026 18:51:56
