IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.16339 of 2024

Padmanav Mohanta

…. Petitioner

Mr.P.K. Mishra, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha & Others

…. Opposite Parties

Mr. S. Das, ASC

CORAM:

JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

09.01.2026

I.A No.22914 of 2025

Order No

05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement

(Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. This application has been filed by the petitioner for

modification / recalling of the order dated 12.12.2025.

3. Heard.

4. Considering the averments made in the application itself, the order dated 12.12.2025 is recalled and fresh

order is passed in W.P.(C) No.16339 of 2024.

5. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

Judge

P.T.O

ORDER

09.01.2026 W.P.(C) No.16339 of 2024

06. 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 05.06.2024, so passed by the Govt.-O.P. No.1 under Annexure-8. 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. 01.12.1982, but in terms of the finance department Resolution issued on 15.05.1997 under Annexure-1, 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 11.05.2010 so issued under Annexure-2, petitioner was brought over to the work charge establishment as against the post of Amin. While so continuing in the work charge establishment, petitioner retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 29.02.2012.

4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though petitioner continued as a NMR w.e.f. 01.12.1982 and in the work charge establishment as a Amin w.e.f. 11.05.2010 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.02.2012 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 05.07.2023 under Annexure-4, 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 30.12.2023 under Annexure-6. Petitioner accordingly challenging such order, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.1663 of 2024. This Court while quashing order dated 30.12.2023, disposed of the Writ Petition vide order dated 31.01.2024 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 2nd occasion under Annexure-7, petitioner’s claim was rejected vide the impugned order dated 05.06.2024 under Annexure-8.

4.6. Learned counsel for the petition