Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.2954 of 2026 Purna Chandra Parida ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Ramesh Chandra Swain -versus- 1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Director Of Higher Education, Bhubaneswar 3) Governing Body, Principal Cum Secy., Baisimouza Higher Secondary School, Purana, Jagatsinghpur Represented by Adv. – Mr. S. Behera, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 02.02.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. The subject matter of this petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P.(C) No.16425 of 2013 between Sri Sarat Chandra Parida v. State of Odisha heard and disposed off by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 08.05.2014. 3. At paragraph-9 of the judgment, it is observed as under: “9 It is admitted by the opposite parties in their counter affidavit that SVM College, where the petitioner was working, is an aided college which came under the direct payment scheme. It is also admitted that petitioner's appointment was approved under the Grant- in-Aid Order 2009 against the post of Library Attendant Page 2 of 3. from the dated became admissible and he was extended block grant @ 100%. Since the petitioner is a non- teaching staff whose appointment has been approved against an admissible post (Library Attendant) and he has been allowed grant-in-aid in the nature of block grant, he cannot be denied the benefits of 1981 Rules. Therefore, the order of the Director under Annexure-9 refusing pensionary benefits to the petitioner is unsustainable and the same is hereby quashed. It is directed that the pension case of the petitioner be considered in accordance with the 1981 Rules and disposed of within a period of four months.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if case of his client is considered in the light of the said judgment, justice would be met to him. 5. Learned AGA Mr. Behera appearing for the opposite parties submits that the said judgment is put in appeal and therefore, hands of the opposite parties are tight. When asked as to whether any interim order of stay has been passed, in all fairness, he says that there is no such order. 6. In the above circumstances, this petition is disposed off directing the opposite party no.1 to accord the same benefit, as has been granted to the petitioners in the cognate case subject to final outcome of W.A. No.197 of 2024 between State of Odisha v. Hementa Kumar Chhotray. No costs. Page 3 of 3. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Sisir Designation: Personal Assistant