WP(C)/70/2024 of SANJUKTA PANDA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 3 September 2026

ORDER

03.09.2026 Order No.14

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. M.K. Khuntia, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Sahoo, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. Pursuant to order dtd.06.08.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction provided by the office of Director, Horticulture and Food Production in its letter dtd.29.08.2026 in Court. The same be kept in record.

4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for the records and after hearing both the parties pass the following reliefs;

i. To quash the order dt.4.8.2023 under ANNEXURE-

8.

ii. To direct the opposite parties to release the earned leave of 300 days. To direct the opposite parties to release the post retiral dues of the petitioner with 18% interest. And pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the impugned order dtd.04.08.2023 under Annexure-8, contended that the deceased employee/husband of the Petitioner was initially engaged as a Grade-I Fitter w.e.f.22.12.1993. While so continuing vide order dtd.17.06.1994 under Annexure-1, the deceased employee was allowed to continue as Fitter Gr-II on ad-hoc basis. However, the deceased employee was appointed as a Grade-I Fitter by facing regular recruitment vide order dt.22.12.1993, where he joined on 31.12.1993, so reflected in the service book of the deceased employee under Annexure-2.

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the deceased employee was appointed on regular basis vide order dt.22.12.1993, where he joined on 31.12.1993. Thereafter, the deceased employee was extended with all service benefits as due and admissible all through till the deceased employee retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2019. Not only that on such appointment of the deceased employee on regular basis, the deceased employee who was earlier continuing under EPF scheme, ceased to be a member under the scheme w.e.f. January 1994, in terms of letter issued on 11.03.1994 under Annexure-9.

Not only that vide letter dtd.25.04.1994 under Annexure-10, the deceased employee was treated as a regular employee.

5.2. It is contended that the deceased employee after his joining on 31.12.1993 as against the post of Fitter Grade-I was extended with all service benefits as due and admissible and after his retirement on 31.05.2019, provisional pension was also sanctioned. However, when the deceased employee was not released with other retiral benefits including final pension and he raised a claim in that regard, that was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.04.08.2023 under Annexure-8.

5.3. It is contended that after rejection of the claim of the deceased employee under Annexure-8 and because of his suffering, the present writ petition was filed by the present Petitioner, who happens to be his wife, challenging order dtd.04.08.2023 under Annexure-8. It is however fairly contended that during pendency of the writ petition, the deceased employee died on 08.09.2025 (death certificate produced in Court be kept in record).

5.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the impugned order, contended that since the deceased employee was appointed as against the post of Fitter Grade-I vide order dt.22.12.1993, with his date of joining as 31.12.1993, so reflected in his service book under Annexure-2 and he was treated as a regular employee with extension of all service benefits and after his retirement on 31.05.2019, he was also sanctioned with provisional pension, there was no occasion in not releasing the other retiral benefits as due and admissible to the deceased employee, so rejected vide the impugned order dtd.04.08.2023 under Annexure-8.

5.5. It is contended that by treating the deceased employee to have been appointed on ad-hoc basis vide order under Annexure-1, such claim of the deceased employee was rejected.

5.6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since as found from the service book the deceased employee was appointed as against the post of Fitter Grade-I on regular basis by facing regular recruitment and at no point of time he was treated as an ad-hoc employee till his retirement with extension of all service and financial benefits, claim of the deceased employee could not have been rejected, so far as release of other retiral benefits is concerned, on the ground indicated in the impugned communication dtd.04.08.2023 under Annexure-8.

5.7. However, in course of hearing and taking into account the plight of the present Petitioner who happens to be the wife, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that if the present Petitioner will be sanctioned with minimum family pension from the date of entitlement and unutilized leave salary as due and admissible, will be released within a stipulated time period, the present Petitioner will have no grievance.

6. Mr. P.K. Sahoo, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned rejection, made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit and the instruction provided to this Court pursuant to order dtd.06.08.2026.

6.1. Learned ASC contended that since the deceased employee was appointed on ad hoc basis vide order dtd.17.06.1994 under Annexure-1, even though he was released with all financial benefits as due and admissible all through and after his retirement on 31.05.2019, he was sanctioned with provisional pension, but on verification of his claim to get other retiral benefits, when it was found that the deceased employee continued on ad hoc basis all through without getting the benefit of regularization, claim of the deceased employee to get all his retirement benefits was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.04.08.2023 under Annexure-8.

6.2. It is contended that since the deceased employee continued on ad-hoc basis all through and he was never treated as a regular employee, even though he was released with all financial benefits as like a regular employee during his service career, neither the deceased employee is entitled to get the retiral benefits, nor the present Petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of family pension.

6.3. It is also contended that G.A. Department as well as Finance Department while giving their views with regard to the claim of the deceased employee, also held that since the deceased employee continued on ad hoc basis all through, the deceased employee is not entitled to get any benefit.

7. To the submission made by the learned State Counsel, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the deceased employee was treated as a regular employee all through with extension of all financial benefits, the deceased employee never remained under the impression that he was continuing on ad- hoc basis. Accordingly, the deceased employee did not take any step for regularization of his service.

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that the deceased employee while continuing as against the post of Grade-I Fitter, vide order dtd.17.06.1994 under Annexure-1, he was appointed on ad-hoc basis as against the post of Fitter Grade-II. However, as found from the service book enclosed under Annexure-2, the deceased employee was appointed as against the post of Fitter Grade-I vide order dt.22.12.1993, where he joined on 31.12.1993. As found, such an appointment was made with conduct of regular recruitment with regular scale of pay.

8.1. As found and which is not disputed, the deceased employee after such joining w.e.f.31.12.1993 as against the post of Fitter Gr-I was released with all financial benefits as due and admissible from time to time till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2019. Not only that on his retirement on 31.05.2019, the deceased employee was sanctioned with provisional pension. However, when the deceased employee made a claim for release of other retiral benefits as due and admissible, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.04.08.2023 under Annexure-8, on the ground that the deceased employee since continued on ad hoc basis all through, he is not entitled to get any such benefit.

8.2. This Court after going through the materials available on record and the submissions made, since found that the deceased employee was treated as a regular employee all through, after his joining on 31.12.1993 till he retired on 31.05.2019 and after his retirement he was also sanctioned with provisional pension, the ground on which claim of the deceased employee was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.04.08.2023 under Annexure-8 is not sustainable in the eye of law.

8.3. It is also the view of this Court that since the deceased employee was treated as a regular employee all through with extension of all financial benefits, there was no occasion on the part of the deceased employee to raise a claim to get the benefit of regularization at any point of time.

8.4. However, considering the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that Petitioner will be satisfied, if she will be sanctioned with minimum family pension from the date of her entitlement along with unutilized leave salary as due to the deceased employee, this Court is inclined to allow such prayer.

8.5. While allowing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 to sanction the benefit of minimum family pension as due and admissible in favour of the present Petitioner who happens to the wife of the deceased employee w.e.f.09.09.2025 and the unutilized leave salary as due and admissible to the deceased employee. This Court directs Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 to complete the entire exercise within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. Consequentially the impugned order dt.04.08.2023 under Annexure-8 stands quashed.

9. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)

Judge Sneha Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Sep-2026 11:24:47 Signature Not Verified