Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 4911 of 2022 Nimain Charan Sahoo ..... Petitioner Mr. A.K. Saa, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 27.03.2025 Order No. 02 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging order dt.13.1.2022 so passed by Government-Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-9. 4. It is contended that claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit as prayed for was rejected on the ground that decision of this Court in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul as well as Sarat Chandra Parida are pending. 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that basing on the order passed in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul, Petitioner therein has already got benefit vide order dt.17.09.2019 of the D.E.O, Balasore. Copy of the order so produced be kept on record. 4.2. It is also contended that the case of Sarat Chandra Parida after being confirmed by the Apex Court vide order dt.19.01.2016, Page 2 of 3. Petitioner therein has also got the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits. 4.3. It is contended that in view of the compliance of the order passed in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul and compliance of the order passed in the case of Sarat Chandra Parida, the ground on which claim of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-9 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.4. It is further contended that claim of the Petitioner is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Jagdish Singh Babu Vs. State of Odisha & Others, passed in W.P.(C) No.29322 of 2020, disposed of on dt. 11.08.2021. It is accordingly contended that the matter be disposed of by quashing the impugned order and direction be issued to consider the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the order passed in the case of Jagdish Singh Babu. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel also fairly contended that the decision in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul as well as Sarat Chandra Parida after being disposed of, have been implemented. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, since it is found that the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground of pendency of the matter in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul and Sarat Chandra Parida and since it is found that both the cases after being disposed of by this Court have been implemented, the ground on which the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.1. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order dt.13.01.2022 so passed by Government-Opp. Party No.1 under Page 3 of 3. Annexure-9. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the order passed in the case of Jagdish Singh Babu as cited supra. Such a fresh decision be taken within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha