IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.32030 of 2022 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Pramod Kumar Nath …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Panda, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. C.K. Pradhan, ASC Mr. S.K. Patra, Advocate for O.P. No.4 PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing:18.02.2026 and Date of Judgment:18.02.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned cousnel appearing for Opp. Party No.4. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: - “It is therefore prayed under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Hon'ble Court Your Lordships may kindly be graciously pleased to issue the notice of show cause asking the opp. parties as to why the prayer of the petitioner to quash/set-aside the order of rejection dtd.05/08/2022 (Annexure-1) passed by the opp. party no-2 shall not be allowed. And this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the opp. parties to pay the pensionary benefits of the petitioner w.e.f 14/03/1991 as per the Rule 18(3) of the Orissa Civil Service (Pension) Rules in consonance to the order of the Hon'ble Court passed in the earlier writ application in W.P.C(OAC) No- 875/2010 vide order dtd- 11.04.2022. And, if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show any insufficient cause your lordship may kindly be graciously pleased enough issue the writ in the nature of mandamus or pass any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions so as to grant the just and proper relief to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner while continuing in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3, he was regularized as a Khalasi in the Regular (Wages) Establishment w.e.f. 14.03.1991 vide office order dated 15.11.1999. 3.1. It is contended that such regularization of the petitioner in the regular (wages) establishment w.e.f. 14.03.1991, was reflected in the service book of the petitioner, so available under Annexure-3. It is contended that even though petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 14.03.1991 vide order dated 15.11.1999 and he continued as such till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2003, but after his retirement when petitioner was not extended with the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits as due and admissible in terms of the provisions contained under OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 on the ground that petitioner has not joined in the regular post, petitioner raised his grievance by approaching the Tribunal in O.A. No.775(C) of 2010. 3.2. The said Original Application after being transferred to this Court, was disposed of vide order dated 11.04.2022 and with a direction on the Opp. Parties to consider the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of Pension and other Pensionary benefits. However, without proper appreciation of the petitioner’s claim and the order passed by this Court, such claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dated 05.08.2022 under Annexure-1. 3.3. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since an entry was made in the service book that petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 14.03.1991 vide office order dated 15.11.1999, it cannot be held that petitioner never joined in the regular (wages) establishment w.e.f. 14.03.1991, in terms of the order dated 15.11.1999. 3.4. It is also contended that after 15.11.1999, petitioner was allowed increments as due and admissible all through and so also revised scale of pay as a regular employee. Therefore, the ground on which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure- 1, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. Though it is not disputed by learned Addl. Govt. Advocate that petitioner while continuing in the work charged establishment, he was regularized and brought over to the regular wages establishment w.e.f. 14.03.1991 vide order dated 15.11.1999, but it is vehemently contended that petitioner never joined in the regular establishment with submission of his joining report. 4.1. It is further contended that since by the time petitioner was brought over to the regular (wages) establishment, he was drawing higher salary as a work charged employee as against the post of Dozer Operator Grade-III, petitioner never choose to join in the regular establishment. 4.2. It is also contended that while continuing in the work charged establishment, petitioner was allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.01.2003. After such retirement of the petitioner from the work charged establishment, vide office order dated 20.01.2015 under Annexure-D/3, petitioner was released with the retirement gratuity as due and admissible. 4.3. It is accordingly contended that since petitioner never joined in the regular wages establishment in terms of order dated 15.11.1999 and he continued in the work charged establishment till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2003, claim of the petitioner after being duly considered has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-1 and it requires no interference. 5. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner made further submission contending inter alia that even though it is accepted that petitioner never joined in the regular (wages) establishment pursuant to order dated 15.11.1999, but since petitioner continued all through as a work charged employee, in view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018, petitioner is otherwise eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh, in Paragraph-13, 14, 15 & 17, 18, 19 & 20 has held as follows: “13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission’s further contention that the appellants are not “full-time” employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State’s refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals. 14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had not specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State’s stance in refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of the High Court compounded the error by affirming the dismissal without engaging with the principal challenge or the intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about “rules” and “vacancy” while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State’s refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained. 15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The State’s refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003,in so far as they concern the Commission’s proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed. xxx xxx xxx 17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad- hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is an institutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. 19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions: i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment. iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgment. iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement. 20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance .As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 5.1. However, in course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly contended that petitioner will have no grievance, if this Court directs the authority to pay the Minimum Pension as due and admissible in his favour from the date of his retirement. 5.2. It is also contended that if Minimum Pension will be sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for his survival, petitioner will not raise any claim with regard to any other service benefits. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner while continuing in the work charged establishment, he was brought over to the regular (wages) establishment w.e.f. 14.03.1991 vide order dated 15.11.1999. Such brought over to the regular (wages) establishment w.e.f. 14.03.1991 was also entered in the service book of the petitioner so available under Annexure-3. 6.1. However, neither side have produced any document with regard to joining/non-joining of the petitioner in the regular (wages) establishment in terms of order dated 15.11.1999 either way. It is however found that petitioner being treated as a retired employee from the work charged establishment was sanctioned with the gratuity vide order dated 20.01.2015 under Annexure-D/3. 6.2. Considering the submission and by accepting that petitioner continued in the work charged establishment for the entire period, this Court in view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh so cited (supra), is of the view that petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits as due and admissible under OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992. 6.3. However, considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court while quashing the impugned order under Annexure-1, held the petitioner entitled to get the benefit of Minimum Pension as due and admissible from the date of his retirement. This Court while holding so, directs Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4 to do the needful by sanctioning the Minimum Pension as due and admissible from the date of entitlement of the petitioner and release the arrear entitlements. 6.4. This Court directs Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4 to complete the entire exercise within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order. 6.5. This order is however passed as a special case and for the purpose of survival of the petitioner and it cannot be treated as a precedent. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna `Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 18th February, 2026/Basudev