IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C )No.32965 of 2025 Swarup Kumar Dalai …. Petitioner Mr. S.B. Jena, Adv.

-versus-

State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order ORDER No. 16.12.2025

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

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Though the matter has been listed under the heading “Fresh Admission”, but considering the fact that this is the third visit of the Petitioner to this Court, this Court on the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the Parties, took up the matter for final disposal.

4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularisation and consequential the sanction of pension and other pensionary benefits in terms of the provisions contained under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.

4.1. It is contended that Petitioner was engaged as a NMR in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3 on 01.08.1989 and while continuing as such, he was brought over to the work charged establishment, instead of being regularly absorbed, vide order dt.27.01.2010 under Annexure-2 but w.e.f 01.03.2009. It is contended that while continuing in the work charged establishment, Petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f 30.04.2020 vide letter dt.27.03.2020 under Annexure-3.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even though Petitioner continued as a NMR w.e.f 01.08.1989 and in the work charged establishment w.e.f 01.03.2009, but at no point of time, he was regularised in his services in terms of Finance Department resolution dt.15.05.1997 so available under Annexure-1 and decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnatak Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC-1,.

4.3. However, taking into account such long continuance as a NMR and in the work charged establishment, Petitioner raised his claim to get the benefit of absorption in the regular establishment for the purpose of getting the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. Such claim of the Petitioner when was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.17222 of 2022. This Court vide order dt.26.07.2022 under Anexure-4, when directed Opp. Party No.1 to consider the Petitioner’s grievance, the same was rejected without proper appreciation vide order dt.23.11.2022 under Annexure-5.

4.4. It is contended that challenging such order passed on 23.11.2022, Petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.33242 of 2022. This Court while disposing the matter vide order dt.16.12.2022 under Annexure-6, directed Opp. Party No.1 to re-consider the Petitioner’s claim in the light of the order passed in the case of Narasu Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa and Others. However, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner fairly contended that claim of the Petitioner is not covered by the decision in the case of Narasu Pradhan.

4.5. It is however contended that since Petitioner continued for a pretty long period starting from 01.08.1999 till 30.04.2020 under the Opp. Parties as a NMR and work charged employee, he should have been absorbed in the regular establishment to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits. But on the face of such order passed by this Court under Annexure-6, claim of the Petitioner was again rejected vide the impugned order dt.06.06.2023 under Annexure-8. It is also contended that such an order of rejection was provided to the Petitioner under RTI vide letter dt.19.09.2025 under Annexure-7.

4.6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner however contended that, claim of similarly situated employees after being allowed by this Court in the case of Khageswar Jena Vs. State of Odisha & Others, so passed in W.P.(C) No. 29993 of 2022, has been upheld by this Court as well as by the Apex C