IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.25908 of 2021 Amar Dalai …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Das, Adv..

-versus-

State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, Addl.Govt.Adv.

COROM:

HON’BLE THE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

07.04.2026 Order No

10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:

Under the above circumstances it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to antedate the appointment of the petitioner from 18.02.1994 i.e. the date from which the batch mates and juniors in the merit list have given appointment as Ophthalmic Assistant; and to grant him all consequential service and financial benefits from 18.02.1994 as given to others without any discrimination within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper, And further the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to brought the petitioner into the OCS (Pension) Rule, 1992 and the GPF scheme of the State Govt. instead of NPS and to grant him all consequential service and financial benefits within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper.

And/or issue any other appropriate writ/writs,order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper in the fitness of the case;

And for this act of kindness as in duty bound the petitioner shall ever pray.

4. It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 11.11.1989, Petitioner though was found eligible and selected with issuance of the select list on 19.02.1992 under Annexure-2 with his position at Sl. No.20, but person placed upto Sl. No.19 when were given the benefit of appointment challenging such action, Petitioner along with 3 others approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.393(c) of 1994. The Tribunal vide order dt.26.07.1995 under Anenxure-5 disposed of the matter with the following direction: In the facts and circumstances of the case we think it would be appropriate for us to dispose of the Original Application with the direction that if vacancies are available at present, the applicants be given appointment against the said existing vacancies. In case vacancies are not available now, future vacancies should be made available to them and they should be appointed against such vacancies on the basis of their merit.

4.1. It is contended that pursuant to such order passed by the Tribunal, though two of the applicants in O.A No.393(c) of 1994 were provided with the appointment vide order dt.1.11.1995 and another applicant vide order dt.27.12.1995 under Annexure-6 series, but Petitioner’s claim was never considered with providing him appointment.

4.2. It is contended that seeking compliance of order dt.26.07.1995 Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing an application in IP No.27 of 1996. However, the said Interlocutory Application when was rejected, challenging the same, Petitioner approached this Court by filing OJC No.494 of 1999. This Court vide order dt.25.08.2005 under Annexure-8, when directed the Opp. parties to consider the Petitioner’s claim in terms of letter dt.07.10.1995 so issued under Annexure-7, Petitioner was ultimately appointed vide order dt.07.01.2006 under Annexure-9.

4.3. It is contended that since Petitioner along with 3 others approached the Tribunal challenging their non-appointment in O.A. No.393(c) of 1994 and pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal on 26.07.1995 under Annexure-5, three(3) of the applicants, save and except the Petitioner were given the benefit of appointment vide order dt.01.11.1995 and 27.12.1995 under Annexure-6 series, Petitioner claiming the benefit of appointment from the date the other three(3) applicants were so appointed, though approached the authority time and again with a prayer to antedate his date of appointment, but no decision was taken.

4.4. Petitioner accordingly moved the Tribunal with a prayer to antedate his