Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 6811 of 2024 Budhia Samal ..... Petitioner Mr. L. Samal, Advocate -versus- Addl. Chief SECY. To Govt. of Odisha, BBSR & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 06.02.2026 Order No. 02 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. L. Samal, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prays that your Lordships' would be graciously pleased to admit this writ application, call for the records and after hearing the parties may be pleased to issue a writ/s/order/s direction/s in the nature of certiorari by way of quashing the impugned order dtd.23.11.2023 passed by the O.P No.1 under Annexure-6 to the writ petition with a further prayer to issue writ of mandamus directing the authority to sanction regular pension and other pensionary dues in favour of the petitioner treating as a regular employee under the Govt. in terms of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Narusu Pradhan's case; AND/OR pass such other order/ orders deemed fit and proper; Page 2 of 4. And for this act of your Lordship's kindness the petitioners as in justice duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that Petitioner though continued in the work charged establishment all through starting from his initial date of engagement on 26.09.1978 till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2013, but at no point of time Petitioner was regularized in his services and accordingly he was deprived to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits under OCS (Pension) rules, 1992. 4.1. It is contended that even though Petitioner prior to his retirement moved the authorities time and again vide Annexure-3 series, but his claim for regularization was never considered, till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2013. It is however contended that ultimately Petitioner claiming extension of the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 33079 of 2022. This Court vide order dtd.09.02.2023 under Annexure-5 directed for consideration of the Petitioner’ claim taking into various orders passed by the Tribunal so confirmed by this Court as well as by the Apex Court. 4.2. It is contended that without proper appreciation of the Petitioner’s claim so directed by this Court, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.23.11.2023 under Annexure-6, so issued by Opp. Party No. 4. 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that similar claim made by one Narusu Pradhan after being allowed by the Tribunal vide order dtd.11.06.2009 in O.A. No. 1189(C) of 2006, was not only upheld by this Court but also by the Apex Court. The aforesaid Narusu Pradhan was also extended with the benefit Page 3 of 4. of pension and other pensionary benefits in compliance to the order of the Tribunal. But Petitioner’s claim has been rejected even though he is squarely covered by the order passed in the case of Narusu Pradhan. 5. Mr. S.P Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by the Opp. Parties. It is contended that since Petitioner continued all through in the work charged establishment and employees working in work charged establishment are not continuing in pensionable establishment as provided under the 1974 instruction, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit as claimed for and the same has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submission made and the decision passed in the case of Narusu Pradhan by the Tribunal and upheld by this Court as well as by the Apex Court with its due implementation, this Court is of the view that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-6 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.1. Since similar benefit has been extended in favour of similarly situated employees like Narusu Pradhan, this Court while quashing order dtd.23.11.2023 so issued by Opp. Party No. 4 under Annexure-6, directs Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim in terms of the decision in the case of Narusu Pradhan. Such a fresh decision be taken within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner. Page 4 of 4. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha