IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.19395 of 2023 Gopal Krushna Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr. B.K. Parida (2), Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 03.02.2026 03. 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 to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits vide impugned order dated 10.02.2020 under Annexure-4. 4. It is contended that petitioner was engaged as a DLR w.e.f. 17.06.1986 to 18.01.2011 and in the work charged establishment till he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2018. It is contended that even though the petitioner continued as a DLR and in the work charged establishment for the period from 17.06.1986 to 31.03.2018, but on the ground that petitioner retired from p. 2 p. 2 work charged establishment, his claim to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits was rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-4. 4.1. It is however contended that in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018, petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit. 4.2. It is accordingly contended that while quashing order under Annexure-4, the matter be remitted to Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s claim. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand while supporting the impugned order, made his submission contending inter alia that since petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2018 and in the work charged establishment and persons working in the work charged establishment as per the 1974 instruction, are not eligible and get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits, his claim has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that petitioner continued as a DLR w.e.f. 17.6.1986 to 18.01.2011 and thereafter in the work charged establishment till he attained the age of superannuation on p. 3 p. 3 31.03.2018. Though it is not disputed that employees working in the work charged establishment are not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh so cited (supra), this Court of the view that claim of the petitioner is required to be considered afresh by following the aforesaid decisions. 6.1. Therefore, this Court while quashing order dated 10.02.2020 so issued under Annexure-4, remits the matter to Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s claim taking into account the aforesaid decisions. Opp. Party No.1 is directed to take a fresh decision within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order along with citations of the above noted cases before Opp. Party No.1 for compliance. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev