WP(C)/12139/2020 of MAHESH CHANDRA DAS Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 13 August 2026

ORDER

13.08.2026

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

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:- A. Admit this writ application. B. As to why the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the Opр. Party no.2 Deputy Secretary S.T.A. Cuttack, shall not be quashed, and, C. As to why the opposite parties more particularly opp. Party nos. 2 and 3 shall not be directed to consider the case of the petitioner regarding the period so rendered as Adhoc basis merits be

// 2 //

declared qualifying services for the purpose of pensionary benefits, and, D. And as to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper. And on their failure to show cause or showing in sufficient cause, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to make the said RULE absolute by way of issuing appropriate writ or writs, order or orders in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

4. It is contended that petitioner was appointed as a Steno-cum-Typist on adhoc basis in the establishment of Opp. Party No.2 vide order of appointment issued on 07.08.1987. While so continuing on adhoc basis, petitioner was appointed as against the post of Jr. Stenographer vide order of appointment issued on 06.03.2000 under Annexure-2.

4.1. It is contended that seeking a direction on the Opp. Parties to treat the adhoc period of service as qualifying service, petitioner made a grievance and subsequently approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5072 of 2020. This Court vide order dated 13.02.2020, when directed for consideration of the petitioner’s grievance to treat the adhoc period of service as qualifying service, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 20.02.2020 under Annexure-

8.

4.2. It is contended that since petitioner prior to his being regularly appointed vide order dated 06.03.2000, was continuing on adhoc basis vide order of appointment issued on 07.08.1987 under Annexure-1 series, the adhoc period of service is required to be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of Pension. But without proper appreciation of the

// 3 //

petitioner’s claim, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 20.02.2020 under Annexure-8.

4.3. Making all these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that with quashing of the impugned order, Opp. Parties be directed to treat the adhoc period of service as qualifying service for the purpose of Pension.

5. Mr. P. Behera, learned Standing Counsel, Transport on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. It is contended that petitioner though was appointed on adhoc basis as against the post of Steno-cum-Typist vide order dated 07.08.1987, but while so continuing, petitioner faced the recruitment process so conducted by the State Transport Commission and on coming out successful in the said recruitment process, petitioner was issued with a fresh order of appointment as against the post of Jr. Stenographer vide order dated 06.03.2000 under Annexure-2.

5.1. It is contended that while continuing in terms of order under Annexure-2 and on his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2021, petitioner has been sanctioned with the pension and other pensionary benefits as due and admissible. It is contended that since petitioner while continuing on adhoc basis, was appointed on regular basis by facing a recruitment process as against a different post vide order dated 06.03.2000 under Annexure-2, period of service rendered on adhoc basis, cannot be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of Pension.

// 4 //

5.2. It is also contended that there is no such rule to treat the adhoc period of service as qualifying service. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order.

6. To the submission made by learned Standing Counsel, Transport, learned counsel for the petitioner made further submission contending inter alia that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.D. Jayaprakash and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC-973, petitioner’s claim to treat the adhoc period of service as qualifying service is required to be allowed.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, it is found that petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis as against the post of Steno- cum-Typist vide order dated 07.08.1987 under Annexure-1. While so continuing, petitioner by facing the selection process, was appointed as against the post of Jr. Stenographer vide order dated 06.03.2000 under Annexure-

2. Petitioner raised a claim to treat the adhoc period of service as qualifying service by making representations under Annexure-6 & 7. When the same was not considered, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5072 of 2020. This Court when directed for consideration of the petitioner’s claim, the same has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 20.02.2020 under Annexure-8.

7.1. Considering the materials available on record, it is found that petitioner while continuing on adhoc basis, he

// 5 //

was regularly appointed by facing the recruitment process as against a different post vide order dated 06.03.2000 under Annexure-2. Petitioner in terms of such order joined in the post.

7.2. Therefore, it is the view of this Court that since petitioner was appointed as against a different post vide order dated 06.03.2000 under Annexure-2 by facing a recruitment process, the adhoc period of service cannot be taken as qualifying service for the purpose of Pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner also failed to show any rule supporting his claim before this Court.

7.3. In view of such position, this Court is of the view that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Opp. Party No.3 in rejecting petitioner’s claim so rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-8. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same and dismiss the Writ Petition.

8. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

Judge Basudev Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Aug-2026 14:36:07 Signature Not Verified