IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.33499 of 2023 Sarat Chandra Roul …. Petitioner Mr. S.P. Jena, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 11.03.2026 04. 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 challenging the order dtd.02.08.2023 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-9, wherein claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits has been rejected inter alia on the ground that Petitioner does not have the required qualifying service in terms of the provisions contained under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was engaged as a DLR on 01.08.1986 and while so continuing, he was brought over to the work charged establishment vide order p. 2 p. 2 dtd.17.01.2011 under Annexure-2. Subsequently, vide Office order dtd.01.03.2019 under Annexure-3, Petitioner was brought over to the regular wages establishment. 4.1. It is contended that while continuing in the regular wages establishment, in terms of the order dtd.30.09.2022, Petitioner on his attaining the age of superannuation, retired on 30.09.2022, so reflected in Annexure-4. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner continued in the regular establishment for less than 10 years, Petitioner was held ineligible to get the benefit of pension and pensioanry benefits. However, taking into account such long continuance for around 33 years, Petitioner when raised the claim to extend the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.02.08.2023 under Annexure-9. 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner placing reliance on the judgment delivered by this Court on 07.03.2026 in W.P.(C) Nos.248 & 289 of 2026 contended that in view of the nature of order passed in the aforesaid two Writ Petitions, Petitioner’s claim is required to be considered afresh by Opposite Party No.1. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel though supported the impugned order, but contended that in view of the judgment delivered by this Court on 07.03.2026 in p. 3 p. 3 W.P.(C) Nos.248 & 289 of 2026, Petitioner’s claim is required to be considered afresh. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties considering the submissions made and placing reliance on the judgment dtd.07.03.2026 so passed in W.P.(C) Nos.248 & 289 of 2026, this Court while quashing the impugned order dtd.02.08.2023 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-9, directs the said authority to take a fresh decision taking into account the judgment passed on 07.03.2026 in W.P.(C) Nos.248 & 289 of 2026. Such a fresh decision is taken within a period of three (3) months with due communication. Petitioner is directed to enclose copy of the judgment dtd.07.03.2026 in his representation to be filed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat