IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21320 of 2022 Basantilata Parida …. Petitioner Mr. D. Mund, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 10.03.2026 09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging rejection of the petitioner’s claim for her coverage under OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 (In short Rules) vide the impugned order dated 15.07.2022 under Annexure-13 of Opp. Party No.1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the CDM & PHO, Kalahandi on 01.02.2003 under Annexure-4, petitioner participated in the selection process and petitioner was appointed as contractual Staff Nurse vide office order dated 16.09.2003 under Annexure-5. 4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that vide the said order, one Nirupama Pal was also appointed as a contractual Staff Nurse. While Nirupama Pal was placed at Sl. No.2, petitioner’s name was there at Sl. No.5 of Annexure-5. It is contended that while so continuing as contractual Staff Nurse, pursuant to letter issued by the Govt-Opp. Party No.1 on 09.02.2009 under Annexure-7, petitioner as well as Nirupama Pal were regularized vide order under Annexure-7. 4.2. In the said order, petitioner while was placed at Sl. No.17, the aforesaid Nirupama Pal was placed at Sl. No.32. It is contended that petitioner along with Nirupama Pal and so many similarly situated Staff Nurses were regularized vide order dated 09.02.2009 under Annexure-7. But when they were not allowed for their coverage under the Rules, they represented before the authority seeking coverage under the Rules. 4.3. When such claim of the petitioner was not considered, she approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2441 of 2016. The Original Application after being transferred to this Court was disposed of vide order dated 02.09.2021 under Annexure-11. Similar claim made by the aforesaid Nirupama Pal was also disposed of by this Court in W.P.C(OAC) No.2462 of 2016. 4.4. It is contended that vide order dated 13.06.2022 under Annexure-12, claim of the Nirupama Pal was allowed and she was extended with the benefit of coverage under the Rules. However, similar claim made by the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dated 15.07.2022 under Annexure-13. 4.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order, contended that since petitioner and Nirupama Pal are similarly situated and both of them claiming their coverage under the Rules, approached this Court in W.P.C(OAC) Nos.2441 & 2462 of 2016 and this Court directed for consideration of both the claim, while allowing the claim of Nirupama Pal vide order dated 13.06.2022 under Annexure-12, claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected vide the impugned order dated 15.07.2022 under Annexure- 13. 4.6. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order requires interference of this Court. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that petitioner in her representation under Annexure-11 series, claiming similar benefit as has been extended in favour of one Geetarani Nayak and Menaka Swain as per order dated 07.04.2016. After due verification, it was found that petitioner is not similarly situated as like Geetarani Nayak and Menaka Swain. 5.1. It is contended that similar benefit was extended in favour of aforesaid two Staff Nurses, basing on the decision taken on 07.04.2016. Since petitioner is not similarly situated as like the aforesaid Geetarani Nayak and Menaka Swain, petitioner’s claim was rejected vide the impugned order dated 15.07.2022 under Annexure- 13. 5.2. It is also contended that such benefit was extended in favour of Geetarani Nayak and Menaka Swain basing on the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.794 of 2012, so confirmed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.16688 of 2015 in its order under Annexure- B/4. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in rejecting petitioner’s claim. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the CDM & PHO, Kalahandi on 01.02.2003 under Annexure-4, petitioner participated in the selection process. Petitioner along with Nirupama Pal and others were appointed as contractual Staff Nurse vide order dated 06.09.2003 under Annexure-5. In the said order, name of the petitioner finds place at Sl. No.5 and name of Nirupama Pal at Sl. No.2. 6.1. It is also found that basing on the letter issued by the Govt. on 09.02.2009, petitioner as well as Nirupama Pal and others, were regularized vide order dated 09.02.2009 under Annexure-7. In the said order, name of the petitioner finds place at Sl. No.17 and that of Nirupama Pal at Sl. No.32. 6.2. It is also found that both petitioner and Nirupama Pal claiming their coverage under the Rules, approached the Tribunal in O.A. Nos.2441 & 2462 of 2016. Both the Original Applications were disposed of by this Court with a direction on the Opp. Party No.1 to consider their respective claim. 6.3. As found, claim of Nirupama Pal though was allowed vide order dated 13.06.2021 under Annexure- 12, but such claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dated 15.07.2022 under Annexure- 13. 6.4. This Court taking into account the materials available on record, is of the view that petitioner is similarly situated as like Nirupama Pal as both of them were appointed vide order dated 16.09.2003 under Annexure-5, pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-4. Both of them were also regularized vide order dated 09.02.2009 under Annexure-7. 6.5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 24.07.2022, so passed by Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-13. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No.1 to extend similar benefit as has been extended in favour of Nirupama Pal vide order dated 13.06.2022 under Annexure-12, with passing of a fresh order within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev