Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 427

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.
Ranjita Jena – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and Others – Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.22956 of 2024
Decided On : 12-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.K. Mishra, Adv.
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC

Employee claims for pension must be considered in light of prior judicial rulings on regularization, asserting rights after prolonged service without due process.

Headnote:(A) OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 - Claim for pension and regularization - The petitioner challenged the rejection of his claim for pension by impugned order dated 13.08.2024, alleging improper consideration of his service and retirement status. The court reiterated the necessity of regularization for pension entitlement as seen in prior rulings. (Paras 3-6)

(B) Absorption and Regularization - The court noted the need for proper procedure as outlined in previous Supreme Court rulings, underscoring that employees irregularly appointed should be considered for regularization after extended service, reaffirming due entitlement to pension post-regularization. (Paras 6-6.4)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, an NMR engaged since 1983, claimed rights to pension despite previous non-regularization and changes in establishment status. After being brought to work-charged status, he retired in 2020, then contested non-acknowledgment for pension benefits. (Paras 4-6)

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the impugned order dated 26.06.2023, stating the rejection lacked legal standing, directing the State to extend pension benefits as per applicable orders and judgments, mandating completion within four months. (Paras 6.4-7)

Issues: The primary issue queried whether prior irregular appointments existed sufficient for pension rights and the legality of rejecting the petitioner’s claims post-Court directive.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned the lack of legal basis in the rejection of claims and established that the petitioner was entitled to benefits correlating with validated judicial precedents.

Result: Writ Petition allowed.

ORDER :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the impugned order dated 13.08.2024, so passed by the Govt.-O.P. No.1 under Annexure-11. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner for extension of the benefit of pension and by treating the petitioner to have retired from regular establishment prior to his retirement under OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 was rejected.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was engaged as a NMR in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3. It is contended that even though petitioner was engaged as a NMR w.e.f. 01.04.1983, but in terms of the finance department Resolution issued on 15.05.1997 under Annexure-3, no step was taken to regularize him in his services. Not only that on the face of such long continuance, petitioner’s claim was also not considered for absorption in the regular establishment in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC-1.

4.1. However, in the meantime vide order dated 23.04.2010 so issued under Annexure-4, petitioner was brought over to the work charge establishment as against the post of Khalasi. While so continuing in the work charge establishment, petitioner retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2020 in terms of order dated 23.04.2010 so issued under Annexure-4.

4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though petitioner continued as a NMR w.e.f. 01.04.1983 and in the work charge establishment as a Khalasi w.e.f. 23.04.2010 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2020, but no step was ever taken to regularize him in his services for the purpose of sanction of pension and other pensionary benefits under OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992.

4.3. It is contended that seeking his absorption in the regular establishment for the purpose of sanction of pension and other pensionary benefits, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20605 of 2023. This Court vide order dated 13.06.2023 under Annexure-7, when permitted the petitioner to make a fresh representation before Opp. Party No.1 for its consideration in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.606 of 2015 decided on 05.07.2018 (Sarbeswar Bhujabala Vrs. State of Odisha and Others), petitioner made a detailed Representation under Annexure-5.

4.4. However, such claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 30.06.2020 under Annexure-6. Petitioner accordingly challenging such order, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.2522 of 2024. This Court while quashing order dated 05.06.2024, disposed of the Writ Petition vide order dated 13.06.2023 under Annexure-7 and directed Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision taking into account the decision in the case of Sarbeswar Bhujabala as well as Khageswar Jena Vs. State of Odisha and Others (W.P.(C) No.29993 of 2022), disposed of on 18.11.2022.

4.5. It is contended that on the face of such order passed by this Court on the 2^nd occasion under Annexure-7, petitioner’s claim was rejected vide the impugned order dated 26.06.2023 under Annexure-8.

4.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that order passed by this Court in the case of Khageswar Jena in the meantime has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with a batch of Special Leave Petition in S.L.P(Civil) Diary NO.33400 of 2023 and batch, decided on 24.07.2025 (State of Odisha and Others Vrs. G. Balakrishna and Others.

4.7. It is also contended that even though claim of the petitioner on the face of the order passed by this Court under Annexure-7 was rejected vide the impugned order, similar order passed in respect of similarly situated employee in W.P.(C) No.97 of 2024 (Kailash Chandra Panda Vs. State of Odisha and Others was allowed by th