IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.22629 of 2024 Rangadhar Satapathy …. Petitioner Ms. S. Biswal, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Another …. Opposite Parties Mr.R. Roy, Adv. COROM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 05.03.2026 6. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appe aring for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dt.18.07.2024 so passed by Opp. party No.2 under Annexure-10. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of re-engagement and consequential sanction of pension and other pensionary benefits, was rejected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner continued as a Peon in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4 for the period from 14.11.1964 to 26.01.1968. Thereafter, Petitioner was allowed to continue as a Peon in the Office of Opp. Party No.3 for the period from 29.08.1968 to 08.10.1968 and as a Chainman in the Office of Collector, Ganjam-Opp. Party No.4 for the period from 27.06.1969 to 24.04.1970. But however w.e.f 24.04.1970, Petitioner was illegally retrenched from services and his prayer for re- engagement was never considered. 4.1. It is further contended that vide letter dt.17.10.1988 under Annexure-2 series, Opp. party No.4 though was requested to consider re-engagement of the Petitioner along with 2(two) other similarly situated employees, but such request was never considered and implemented by allowing the Petitioner the benefit of re- engagement. Not only that Opp. party No.3 vide letter dt.05.02.1996 and 19.12.1997, though requested the Collector-Opp. Party No.4 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s grievance, but no action was taken in ventilating the grievance of the Petitioner for his re- engagement. 4.2. It is contended that Petitioner challenging such inaction of Opp. party No.4 though approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.330 of 2003, but the said matter after being transferred to this Court was disposed of vide order dt.02.12.2021 under Annexure-3 with a liberty to approach the appropriate authority, if any cause of action still survives. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 02.12.2021 under Annexure-3, Petitioner when made a grievance on 28.01.2022, the same was rejected by Opp. Party No.4 vide order dt.21.03.2022 under Annexure-4. After such rejection of his claim, Petitioner moved Opp. Party No.3 or his re- engagement by making a detailed representation on 10.04.2023 under Annexure-5. 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner further contended that similarly situated employees when were extended with the benefit by this Court vide order under Annexure-8 series, Petitioner claiming similar benefit, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.37082 of 2023. This Court vide order dt.21.11.2023 under Anneuxre-9 when directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim, without proper appreciation, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dt.18.07.2024 under Annexure-10. 4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the impugned order contended that since after his retrenchment w.e.f 24.04.1970, on the face of repeated request, Opp. party No.4 never considered his grievance in re-engaging him and accordingly, Petitioner was deprived to continue in service, Petitioner became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits. But on the face of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C ) No.37082 of 2023, claim of the Petitioner was rejected. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order requires interference of this Court and with a direction on the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 to extend the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits in favour of the Petitioner. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the materials available on record, as no counter affidavit has been filed, on the face of the notice being issued vide order dt.23.09.2024. 5.1. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel while supporting the impugned order contended that Petitioner was initially engaged as a Chainman in the Office of Settlement Officer, Ganjam-Koraput w.e.f 14.11.1964. While so continuing, he was dis-engaged on 26.01.1968. Petitioner thereafter was engaged as a Tent Khalasi in the Office of Opp. Party No.3 w.e.f 19.08.1968 in a leave vacancy and he was discharged after continuing for around three (3) months. Petitioner thereafter though was engaged as a Chairman in Aska Tahsil vide letter dt.27.06.1969, but he was retrenched after continuing for around one (1) year on 24.04.1970. Since Petitioner was never engaged after 24.04.1970 and Petitioner was never appointed against a regular post, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits. 5.2. It is further contended that Petitioner since was engaged for around 5(five) years in different capacity and with break in engagement, and is not in service w.e.f 24.04.1970, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits which has been rightly rejected. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner continued for the period from 14.11.1964 to 26.11.1968 as a Chainman, for the period 19.09.1968 to 08.10.1968 as a Tent Khalasi in leave vacancy and as a Chainman for the period 27.06.1969 to 24.04.1970 in the Office of Aska Tahasil. It is not disputed that Petitioner was retrenched w.e.f 24.04.1970 and he was never re-engaged till he attained the age of superannuation. No order of engagement is enclosed to the Writ Petition showing that Petitioner was appointed against a regular post at any point of time. 6.1. Since Petitioner continued in the establishment of Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 for different period with break in engagement for around 5(five) years and not in service w.e.f 24.04.1970, this Court is of the view that Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits and such claim after due consideration has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order dt.16.07.2024 under Annexure-10. This Court accordingly is not inclined to interfere with the said order and dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita