p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. NO.63 of 2023 Addl. Chief Secretary to Govt. of Odisha, Water Resources Dept and ors. …. Appellants Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal, Additional Standing Counsel -versus- Balabha Naik …. Respondent Mr. Indramani Sahoo, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ORDER Order No. 28.01.2026 08. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Order dated 29th September, 2022 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Single Judge in WPC (OA) No. 138 of 2019 is under challenge in this Intra-Court Appeal. 2.1. Learned Single Judge in order under Annexure-1 relying upon the judgment dated 11th June, 2009 passed in O.A. No.1189 (C) of 2006 passed by Odisha Administrative Tribunal, in the case of Narasu Pradhan vs. State of Odisha and others held that the Respondent (Applicant therein) being on similar footing is entitled to all the service benefits extended to Narasu Pradhan and also directed to release the consequential as well as differential benefits as due and admissible to the Respondent within a period of four months from the date of communication of the impugned order. The judgment dated 11th June, 2009 passed in Narasu Pradhan (supra) directing to regularize the services of the Applicant therein in any vacant post after the completion of five years as work-charged employee, to grant him notional increment as due from time to time and to release all the Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jan-2026 12:42:11 Signature Not Verified p. 2 retiral benefits, was challenged by the State of Odisha in W.P.(C) No. 5377 of 2010, which was dismissed vide order dated 19th December, 2011. 3. The State of Odisha being not satisfied preferred SLP(C) No. 22498 of 2012 which was also dismissed on 7th January, 2013. Thereafter, the State implemented the judgment passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by extending all the benefits and releasing retiral benefit to said Narasu Pradhan vide office order No.2858 dated 9th May, 2013. Learned counsel for the Respondent also drew attention of this Court to orders passed in similar such cases, wherein the Respondents therein have already received retiral benefits after dismissal of the SLP(C)s filed by the State of Odisha before Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. In view of the above, Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Writ Appeal merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel does not dispute the factual as well as legal position. It is his submission that in similar such cases, after dismissal of the SLP(C)s/Appeals by the Hon’ble Supreme Court filed by the State Government, the order of the Tribunal has already been implemented by releasing pensionary benefit in respect of the Respondents therein. 6. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the parties that recently, i.e., on 24th July, 2025, a batch of similar Appeals preferred by the State Government, have been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jan-2026 12:42:11 Signature Not Verified p. 3 7. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Writ Appeal merits no consideration as similarly situated employees have already been extended with benefit of regularization in service and release of pensionary benefit in their favour. No material contrary to such direction/action of the State Government has been placed before us to take a different view. 8. Accordingly, taking into consideration of the fact that the direction in the case of Narasu Pradhan (supra) has already been implemented and the Respondent stands on a similar footing, the Respondent herein deserves the same treatment. 9. Since the Respondent is fighting out litigations since 2014 for his regularization, notional benefits as well as pensionary benefit, in terms of the direction in WPC(OA) No. 138 of 2019 is expected to be extended to the Respondent within a period of four months hence. 10. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. Interim order dated 17th April, 2023 passed in IA No.151 of 2023 stands vacated. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (S.K. Mishra) Rojalin Judge Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER