[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Naresh Chandra Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 25 March, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.13617 of 2021
Naresh Chandra Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. T. Pattanayak, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.
.... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
25.03.2026
Order No.
13. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. T. Pattanayak, learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. P.K. Panda, learned
Addl. Standing Counsel. None appeared in spite of due
appearance on behalf of the private Opposite Parties.
3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter
alia with the following prayer:-
"Under the above circumstance, it is therefore, humbly
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to issue notices to the Opp. Parties, calling
upon them to show cause as to why the order
dtd.22.12.2020 under Annexure-8 and order No.1572,
dtd.15.02.2021 under Annexure-10 to this writ
application passed by the Opp. Party No.3 and 4
respectively shall not be quashed, if the Opp. Parties
fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, this
// 2 //
Hon'ble High Court may graciously be pleased to allow
this writ application by directing the opp. Parties more
particularly to the Opp. Party No.2 and 3 respectively
to prepare a fresh gradation list by taking into the
consideration made by the petitioner vide Annexure-5
to this writ application and regularize the service of the
petitioner in due procedure of law, by quashing the
order dtd. 15.02.2021 under dtd.22.12.2020 under
Annexure-8 Annexure-10 to this writ application; and
order
And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions
and/or issue any writ/writs as deem fit and proper in
the interest of justice;
pray. And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in
duty bound shall ever"
4. It is contended that Petitioner was engaged as a
NMR in the establishment of Opposite Party No.4 on
01.07.1988 and while continuing as a NMR, Petitioner
was brought over to the work charged establishment
w.e.f. 01.09.2009 in terms of the order dtd.31.08.2009
of Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-3. However,
while continuing in the work charged establishment,
when a gradation list was published by Opposite Party
No.4 vide order dtd.10.06.2020 under Annexure-4,
Petitioner made a representation under Annexure-5,
with a prayer to rectify the said gradation list and for
placing him at the appropriate place.
5. It is contended that such claim of the Petitioner as
made in his representation dtd.18.06.2020 under
Annexure-5, when was not considered, he approached
this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.2523 of 2021. This
Court vide order dtd.25.01.2021 when directed for
// 3 //
consideration of the Petitioner's claim, the same was
rejected vide order dtd.15.12.2021 under Annexure-10
so impugned in the present Writ Petition.
6. However, in course of hearing, learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner contended that since
Petitioner during pendency of the Writ Petition has
already retired on attaining the age of superannuation
on 31.01.2024, while continuing in the work-charged
establishment, and taking into account the fact that
petitioner continued as a NMR w.e.f., 01.07.1988 and
in the work-charged establishment w.e.f. 01.09.2009
till his retirement on 31.01.2024, liberty be given to the
Petitioner to make an appropriate application to extend
the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits by
regularizing his service just prior to one day of his
retirement.
7. In support of his submission reliance was placed
to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 3826; Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam,
Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as
Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil
Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018 and another decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. State of
Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99.
// 4 //
8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel however
contended that taking into account the issue involved,
the writ petition has become infructuous.
9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties and considering the submissions made, this
Court while disposing the Writ Petition permits the
Petitioner to make an appropriate application before
Opposite Party No.3 for regularization of his services for
the purpose of sanction of pension and pensionary
benefits within a period of three (3) weeks hence.
9.1. It is observed that if any such representation will
be filed within the a period of three(3) weeks hence,
Opp. Party No.3 shall do well to take a lawful decision
on the same within a period of three (3) months from
the date of receipt of such application. The order so
passed by Opp. Party No.3 be communicated to the
Petitioner.
9.2. While taking such a decision relevancy and effect
of the decision in the case of Jaggo, Shripal Dharam
Singh & Bhola Nath so cited supra be considered in
its proper perspective.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Digitally Signed Judge
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Subrat
Date: 31-Mar-2026 11:00:33
