Orissa High Court
WP(C)/31813/2024 of KHEMUNDU NAYANA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 3 September 2026
of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) Nos. 3003 of 2025, 9162, 20182, 21270, 23359, 23975, 25173, 26077, 26582, 28061, 28067, 28982, 30474, 30708, 31813, 32093 & 32579 of 2024 CNR Nos. ODHC010030292025, ODHC010207502024, ODHC010594542024, ODHC010617222024, ODHC010672162024,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) Nos. 3003 of 2025, 9162, 20182, 21270, 23359, 23975, 25173, 26077, 26582, 28061, 28067, 28982, 30474, 30708, 31813, 32093 & 32579 of 2024
CNR Nos. ODHC010030292025, ODHC010207502024, ODHC010594542024, ODHC010617222024, ODHC010672162024, ODHC010652342024, ODHC010697892024, ODHC010724712024, ODHC010748802024, ODHC010778642024, ODHC010779212024, ODHC010829002024, ODHC010804522024, ODHC010829212024, ODHC010850982024, ODHC010851042024, ODHC010886902024
WP(C) No. 3003 of 2025
CNR No. ODHC010030292025
Nanda Kishore Sahoo
.....
Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.
.....
Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC
Mr. S.K. Patra, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
03.09.2026 Order No.08
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Since the present batch of writ petitions involve similar issue, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.
4. It is contended that all the Petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions were appointed in the work charged establishment and continued as such till their retirement. However, on the ground that Petitioners were never regularized while in service, claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of regularization and consequential sanction of pension was rejected vide the impugned orders in each of the writ petitions.
4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that the issue involved in the present batch of writ petitions is no more res integra in view of the order passed by this Court in the case of Sambhu Debnath vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.C.(OAC) No. 3248 of 2018), confirmed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 3064 of 2023 disposed of on 03.01.2024 and by the Apex Court with dismissal of the SLP filed by the State on 24.07.2025. The order passed in the case of Sambhu Debnath has also been implemented in the meantime with extension of the benefit vide order dtd.21.03.2026.
4.2. It is also contended that similar issue has been affirmed by the Apex Court with dismissal of batch of appeals by the Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha & Ors. vs. G. Balakrishna, SLP (C) Diary No. 33400 of 2023. Accordingly, it is contended that in view of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Sambhu Debnath, which has been affirmed by the Apex Court and the decision in the case of G. Balakrishna, the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected in each of the writ petitions is no more sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court with disposal of the matter in the light of the order passed in the case of Sambhu Debnath.
5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned order in each of the cases, contended that since Petitioners, which is not disputed continued in the work charged establishment all through and they were never regularized prior to their retirement, they are not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension nor post facto regularization.
5.1. It is also contended that since Petitioners continued in the work charged establishment, their service condition is governed as per the 1974 instruction and such continuance is not in a pensionable establishment. It is also contended that Petitioners in the meantime after the retirement, have got the benefit as provided under the 1974 instruction. Accordingly, it is contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order in each of the writ petitions.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submission made and since it is not disputed that all the Petitioners continued in the work charged establishment from their initial date of engagement till they attained the age of superannuation, it is the view of this Court that claim of the Petitioners is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Sambhu Debnath so confirmed in the Writ Appeal and the Apex Court and so also the decision in the case of G. Balkrishna.
6.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while quashing the impugned orders in each of the writ petitions, dispose of the writ petitions in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sambhu Debnath and directs Opp. Party No. 1 to extend similar benefit as order passed in the case of Sambhu Debnath has already been implemented vide order dtd.31.03.2026. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to sanction the benefit as due and admissible as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. All the writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of.
Photo copy of the order be placed in the connected case records.
(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