IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.625 of 2025 State of Odisha & others …. Appellants Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA -versus- Srinibash Purohit & others …. Respondents CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 13.03.2026 01. This Intra-Court Appeal by the State and its officials lays a challenge to a learned Single Judge’s order dated 06.05.2022 in W.P.(C)(OAC) No.765 of 2015 having favoured the Respondent herein, direction has been accorded to maintain his position and to continue the GPF scheme from the date of his regularisation. 2. The Resp.-1 was appointed as Pharmacist under MHU on Contractual basis w.e.f. 29.02.1996 by the Selection Committee, where later he was engaged as a Pharmacist on Contractual basis under the Regular Establishment vide order dated 24.01.2005, pursuant to which he joined on 30.01.2005. While continuing as such, the services of the Resp.-1 was brought over to the Regular Establishment vide order dated 30.10.2008. Therefore, the Resp.- 1 could not be brought within the fold of the Old Pension Scheme, i.e., OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the existing GPF Rules, inasmuch as the Government of Odisha, Finance Department vide Notification No.44451/F dated 17.09.2005 introduced a new and restructured Contribution Pension Scheme for the new entrants in the State Government service w.e.f. 01.01.2005. Resp.-1 having been brought to the regular establishment was accordingly covered under the New Pension Scheme. The Resp.-1 challenged the aforesaid action of the authorities for not including him under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.765 (C) of 2015. Subsequently, the Odisha Administrative Tribunal having abolished his case, Resp.-1 preferred W.P.(C) (OAC) No.765 of 2015. 2.1. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellants essentially lay challenge on the ground that, the reference made by the learned Single Judge to the judgment in O.A. No.98 of 2015, differs in its fact matrix than the case at hand. Inasmuch as the incumbent in the aforesaid case was in contractual appointment against sanctioned posts but was subsequently brought to the regular establishment by virtue of a policy decision, whereas the case of Appellant’s is where Resp.-1 continued to be a contractual employee until he was brought to the Regular Establishment in 2008. 2.2. The findings of the learned Single Judge are also assailed on the ground that the New Pension Scheme was introduced w.e.f. 01.01.2005 and the Petitioner, being engaged as a regular employee w.e.f. 30.12.2008, is not entitled to the Old Pension Rules but the New Pension Scheme. Submits learned AGA to necessitate dismissal of this Appeal. Page 3 of 4 3. None having appeared on behalf of Resp.-1, perusal of pleading papers and the impugned judgment shows, what has already known to the Court. His appointment was contractual, which was subsequently brought to the Regular Establishment as a Contractual employee on 24.01.2005 and eventually regularised on 30.10.2008. It is the case of the Petitioner that the 2005 Notification having retrospectively enacted the New Pension Rules; puts the case of Resp.-1 within the purview of the Old Pension Rules and GPF Scheme, and not otherwise. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellants and having perused Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter, the learned Single Judge having elaborately considered the status of the Resp.-1 in connection with the 2005 Notification being superseded by new scheme. A Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 15433 & 15856 of 2012 between Shri Anand Dash and Seven Ors. vs. State of Orissa, has put to rest the contention which is before us too, the Resp.-1 being brought to the Regular Establishment with retrospective effect, and the Notification of the Government having been published subsequently. Added, another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.22057 of 2019 between State of Odisha & Others vs. Sanjulata Sethy & Others and W.P.(C) No. 3244 of 2022 between Ranjan Kumar Sahu vs. State of Odisha and Ors., has dealt with a similar issue, that stood the test on the floor of the Hon’ble Apex Court regard being had to the date of applicability as to the coverage of the old pension rules and the scheme of GPF has been set at rest indicating to those who joined in the pensionable establishment prior to September 2005. 5. 5. Therefore, the case of the Respondent No.1, being one within the ratio of the decisions aforestated, in the absence of any material having been demonstrated by the Appellants regarding the non-sustainability of the impugned decision of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)(OAC) No.765 of 2015, this Court finds the present Appeal devoid of merit and is as such dismissed. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Sarbani Designation: Junior Stenographer