IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.25331 of 2025 Daitri Lenka …. Petitioner Mr. S. Roy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 12.03.2026 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Pursuant to the order dtd.18.12.2025, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction so provided by the Department vide letter dtd.10.03.2026. The same be kept in record. 4. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue Rule "NISI" to the Opp. Parties to show cause as to; (1) Why the impugned order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-10 in the facts and circumstances of the case will not be declared as illegal and as such liable to be set aside; and p. 2 p. 2 (ii) Why the Opposite Parties will not be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner within a stipulated time; and (iii) Why the Opposite Parties will not be directed to sanction pension and other pensionary benefits under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 as due and admissible in favour of the petitioner on such regularization of his service within a stipulated time; And if the Opp. Parties do not show cause, then the Rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ /writs and any other order as deem fit be passed; And for this act of kindness, petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 5. It is contended that the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.12.07.2025 under Annexure-10 is no more sustainable in view of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Khageswar Jena vs. State of Orissa & Ors, so confirmed by the Apex Court while dismissing a batch of Civil Appeals in the case of State of Orissa & Ors. vs. G. Balakrishna. 5.1. It is accordingly contended that while quashing the impugned order, the matter be remitted to Opposite Party No.1 to consider the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the decisions in the case of Khageswar Jena vs. State of Orissa & Ors, so confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa & Ors. vs. G. Balakrishna. 6. On instruction, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that claim of the Petitioner is not covered by the decision in the case of Khageswar Jena vs. State p. 3 p. 3 of Orissa & Ors., as Petitioner was engaged as a NMR w.e.f. 01.03.1978 and thereafter in the work charged establishment w.e.f. 16.10.2009. While so continuing in the work charged establishment w.e.f. 16.10.2019, Petitioner since retired on 31.07.2021, Petitioner’s claim is not covered by the decision in the case of Khageswar Jena vs. State of Orissa & Ors. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was engaged as a NMR w.e.f. 01.03.1978 and brought over to the worked charged establishment w.e.f.16.10.2009, Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2021. 7.1. In view of such long continuance as a NMR and thereafter in worked charged establishment for around 43 years, this Court is of the view that claim of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Khageswar Jena vs. State of Orissa & Ors. 7.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition with quashing of the impugned order dtd.12.07.2025 under Annexure-10 directs Opposite Party No.1 to extend similar benefit as has been extended in the case of Khageswar Jena vs. State of Orissa & Ors. so confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa & Ors. vs. G. Balakrishna in favour of the Petitioner within a period p. 4 p. 4 of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Subrat Judge