WP(C)/1538/2022 of UGRASEN NAIK Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 3 September 2026

ORDER

03.09.2026

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

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “The petitioner, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court would graciously be pleased to consider the above stated fact and circumstances of the case, admit this writ application, issue Notice to the Opp. Parties under Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties as to why the impugned under Annexure-3 dtd.09.11.2021 passed by the Principal Secretary to Govt. of Odisha, Water Resource Department shall not be quashed;

// 2 //

And/or to direct the Opp. Party No.5 to bring the service of the petitioner under Regular establishment prior to his retirement on 31.03.2018 and sanction the minimum pension in his favour along with other pensionary benefits and the arrear outstanding pensionary benefits along with interest within a stipulated period of time.

And if the Opp. Parties are failed to show cause or shows insufficient cause the said Rule be made absolute; And to pass any other appropriate writ(s)/ direction(s)/ order(s) as deem fit and proper;”

4. It is contended that Petitioner though continued as a NMR w.e.f. 01.05.1984 and thereafter in the work- charged establishment w.e.f. 01.03.2009, but on the face of such long continuance till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.09.2018, Petitioner was never regularized. Petitioner when raised a claim for such regularization prior to his retirement by making an application before the Tribunal in O.A No.3888(C) of 2017 and this Court vide order dtd.16.08.2021 under Annexure-2, while disposing the Writ Petition directed Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim, such claim of the Petitioner was rejected by Opposite Party No.1 vide the impugned order dtd.09.11.2021 under Annexure-3.

4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim was rejected vide order dtd.09.11.2021 under Annexure-3, is no more sustainable in view of the

// 3 //

decision rendered by this Court in the case of Khageswar Jena so upheld by the Apex Court in the case of G. Balkrishna & Ors.

4.2. It is accordingly contended that with quashing of the impugned order, the Writ Petition be disposed of in the light of the order passed in the case of Khageswar Jena.

5. Even though notice of the Writ Petition has been issued since 10.02.2022, but no counter affidavit has been filed as yet. However, basing on the available material, it is contented that since Petitioner prior to his retirement was never regularized, his claim has been rightly rejected pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 16.08.2021 in WPC (OAC) No.3888 of 2017.

5.1. It is also contended that claim of the Petitioner is not covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Khageswar Jena, so upheld by the Apex Court in the case of G. Balkrishna & Ors.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was engaged as a NMR w.e.f. 01.05.1984 under Opposite Party No.5 and while so continuing as a NMR, he was brought over to the work charged establishment w.e.f. 01.03.2009, Petitioner

// 4 //

continued in the said work charged establishment till he retired on 31.03.2018.

6.1. Claiming benefit of regularization as well as pension under OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, Petitioner’s prior to his retirement moved the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.3888(C) of 2017. However, the said matter after being transferred to this Court, was disposed vide order dtd.16.08.2021 under Annexure-2, with a direction on the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization and pension under OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. However, such claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.09.11.2021 under Annexure-3.

6.2. It is found that similar claim when was allowed by this Court in the case of Khageswar Jena and in similar cases, order passed in the case of Khageswar Jena and Others, similar matters were upheld by the Apex Court, while dismissing a batch of civil appeals in the case of State of Odisha & Ors. vs. G.B. Balkrishna and Ors. Since it is found from the record that claim of the Petitioner is similar to that of Khageswar Jena, this Court while quashing the impugned order dtd. 09.11.2021 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-3, dispose of the Writ Petition in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Khageswar Jena.

// 5 //

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Subrat

Judge Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Sep-2026 17:17:16 Signature Not Verified