[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha & Others vs Khali Gauda (In Wa No.676 Of 2024) on 26 March, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. Nos.676, 677, 683, 686, 688, 690, 2135, 277 of 2024
&
W.A. No.815 of 2025
State of Odisha & others .... Appellants
(except in W.A. No.277 of
2024 in which Principal
Secretary to Govt. of Odisha
Water Resources Deptt.,
Bhubaneswar & others are the
Appellants)
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. J.K. Khandayatray, ASC
Mr. S.B. Panda, AGA
Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA
-versus-
Khali Gauda (In WA No.676 of 2024)
Pramod Kumar Khuntia (In WA No.677 of 2024)
Chintamani Sahoo (In WA No.683 of 2024)
Abhinna Kumar Parija (In WA No.686 of 2024)
Banshidhar Behera (In WA No.688 of 2024)
Bhimsen Mohapatra (In WA No.690 of 2024)
Gangadhar Rauta (In WA No.2135 of 2024)
Sunakar Swain (In WA No.277 of 2024)
Chakradhar Palei .... (In WA No.815 of 2025)
Respondent(s)
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. S. Patra, Adv. in all except
WA Nos.2135 & 277 of 2024 &
W.A. No.815 of 2025
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra in
W.A. Nos.2135 of 2024 & W.A.
No.515 of 2025
Mr. S. Behera, Adv.
in W.A. No.277 of 2024
Page 1 of 5
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
26.03.2026
Order No.
01. The subject matter of the present Appeals is substantially
similar to that considered by this Court in State of Orissa vs. Jhuma
Parida & others, O.J.C. No. 1162 of 1999; State of Orissa vs.
Sudarsan Sahoo & others, O.J.C. No. 11028 of 1999; and
subsequently in Abhaya Charan Mohanty vs. State of Odisha,
W.P.(C) (OAC) No. 3494 of 2013, disposed of on 14.07.2021. The
decision in Abhaya Charan Mohanty (supra) was carried to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court by the State in Civil Appeal No. 21498 of
2012 and came to be dismissed by order dated 19.12.2011. The
same principle was thereafter followed in Narusu Pradhan vs. State
of Orissa, O.A. No. 1189(C) of 2006. In all the aforesaid matters,
the Petitioners, who had initially been engaged in the work-charged
establishment, were held entitled to pensionary benefits upon
retirement, with their services being reckoned retrospectively for the
purpose of qualifying service.
2. A Co-ordinate Bench in this Court in a similar matter in the
case of Chandra Nandi vs. State of Odisha and others reported in
2014(I) OLR 734 too directed extending the benefit to the
Petitioners notionally regularizing the services prior to the
superannuation from service and to calculate the pensionary benefits.
Similarly, another Co-ordinate Bench in W.A. No.226 of 2024
between State of Odisha & Anr. vs. Phanindra Kumar Mishra
disposed of vide order dated 25.08.2025 also dealt in similar matters.
Relevant paragraphs of the said order are extracted as under:
"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
2022 for his regularization, notional benefits as well as
pensionary benefit, in terms of the direction in W.P.(C)
No. 9296 of 2022 is expected to be extended to the
Respondent within a period of four months hence."
3. Furthermore, this Bench in W.A. No.1598 of 2024 between
State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Basanti Das disposed off on 02.02.2026
too held as follows:
"12. An employee who has rendered long and
continuous service under a work-charged establishment
in terms of the governing resolutions cannot be placed
at a disadvantage merely because the employer failed
to take timely administrative steps. The State, having
framed policies for amelioration of service conditions
of such employees, is under a corresponding obligation
to implement them meaningfully, and failure to do so
cannot be permitted to prejudice post-retiral security.
Such limited notional intervention neither disturbs the
service hierarchy nor confers collateral service benefits
such as back wages or seniority. The relief is confined
strictly to pensionary benefits, which are in the nature
of deferred compensation and social security, and
which courts have consistently treated not as a matter
of discretion, but as a right flowing from the applicable
service framework.
13. It goes without saying that pension being a measure
of post-retiral social security, the State cannot be
permitted to frustrate its own executive decisions by
inaction. Once eligibility under the governing
instructions is established, the consequential
pensionary benefits must follow. Such a direction
represents a measured application of settled law to
prevent manifest injustice and to ensure that policy
decisions are not rendered illusory by administrative
inertia.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court too, has recently
affirmed the same position in Bhola Nath vs. State of
Jharkhand, 2026 INSC 99, reiterating that pension,
being a facet of social security and a constitutional
guarantee against arbitrariness, cannot be denied on
technical or procedural grounds when substantive
eligibility stands established.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present
case clearly falls within the category of cases where
long and continuous service under the work-charged
establishment, coupled with employer inaction despite
enabling policy decisions, warrants limited notional
intervention to effectuate pensionary entitlement."
4. The principle that persons similarly situated cannot be
subjected to differential treatment constitutes the bedrock of the
equality doctrine enshrined in Constitution of India. Article 14
mandates equality before the law and equal protection of the laws,
thereby proscribing arbitrariness in State action.
Any unreasonable or discriminatory distinction between
individuals placed in identical or comparable circumstances,
whether in matters of pay, service benefits, or promotion, would fall
foul of the constitutional guarantee. The governing norm remains
that 'like cases must be treated alike', and any deviation must
withstand the test of intelligible differentia and rational nexus.
5. Taking cue from the aforesaid principles, learned counsel for
the Respondents contends that cases resting on identical factual and
legal foundations must receive identical treatment, and that the
operative directions issued in the cognate matters ought to be
incorporated in the present order as well. We find substantial merit
in the said submission and are in respectful agreement with the
contention advanced on behalf of the Respondents.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the present Appeals are
disposed off in terms of the orders passed in Narusu Pradhan vs.
State of Orissa (supra) and Basanti Das vs. State of Odisha (supra),
and shall be governed by the same directions and consequences as
expounded therein. The entire exercise of extending the benefit be
completed within a period of eight weeks.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Prasant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO
