Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.14124 of 2025 Suru Mali ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Tushar Kanta Nayak -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 16.05.2025 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “The petitioner, therefore prays that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, issue notice to the opposite parties to file their show cause as to why the case of the petitioner shall not be allowed and after hearing the parties, the case of the petitioner be allowed and necessary order be passed that the petitioner shall be entitled to receive the pension as if the petitioner has retired from the regular establishment and direct the Page 2 of 4. opp. parties to regularize the petitioner in service w.e.f completion of 5 years of service in work charged establishment to his superannuation notionally and grant pension and pensionary benefit under the old rule in the light of the decision in the case of State of Odisha Vrs. Pitambar Sahoo in WP(C) NO-24041 of 2017 (decided on 20.12.2017) which has been affirmed in SLP (C) Diary No-30806 of 2018 and in the light of in the case of State of Odisha Vrs. Pitambar Sahoo in WP(C) NO-24041 of 2017 (decided on 20.12.2017) which has been affirmed in SLP (C) Diary No-30806 of 2018 and in the light of the orders dated 16.11.1999 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.2559 (C) of 1999 (Kasidev Maharana v. State of Orissa & Ors.) and batch, which has been confirmed by this Court vide order dated 08.01,2018 passed in WP(C) No.7246 of 2016 and re-affirmed by the Apex Court vide order dtd.30.07.2018 passed in Dairy No.23207 of 2018, in view of implementation of the order of the Tribunal pursuant to the common judgment dtd.27.07.2021 passed by this Court in CONTC (C) No.305 of 2000 and batch and in the light of order dtd.28.06.2022 passed in W.P(C) No- 24918/2013 (Pitabas Pradhan and others vrs. State Of Orissa and Others) which has been affirmed in SLP (Civil) Dairy No- 31176/2023 and also in the case of Chandra Nandi Versus State of Odisha, reported in 2014(1) OLR 734 and in the case of one Narusu Pradhan in O.A. No. 1189(c) of 2006, disposed of on 11.04.2009 and the said order was affirmed by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2010 and also order passed in Narasu Pradhan case has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.22498 of 2012 as well as order dated 30.01.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 38771 of 2020- Pradip Kumar Panigrahi versus State of Odisha and Others case has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the entire benefit be given to him within a stipulated period. And may pass any order/orders which the Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper” Page 3 of 4. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner wants to make a fresh representation before the authority concerned with a direction from this Court to the authority to consider the case of the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time. 5. Learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties submits that he has no objection if the Petitioner is permitted to file a fresh representation before the authority concerned with a direction to the authority concerned to consider the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time. 6. Considering such submissions and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, this Court disposes of the writ petition permitting the Petitioner to make a fresh representation taking therein all the grounds along with the supporting documents before the Opposite Party No.2 within two weeks from today and in such event the representation filed by the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner by taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in Banshidhar Behera v. State of Odisha & others (W.P.(C) No.29125 of 2022 and batch of similar other writ petitions decided vide judgment dated 02.11.2023) as well as judgment in Narusu Pradhan vs. State of Odisha (O.A. No.1189(C) of 2006 decided on 11.06.2009) and dispose of the same Page 4 of 4. strictly in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of filing of such representation. The decision so taken on such representation shall be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis