Page 1 of 11. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.1402 of 2026 Sk. Abdul Wadood ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Mahendra Kumar Sahoo -versus- State Of Orissa and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 30.04.2026 Order No. 04. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 2. By filing the present writ application, the Petitioner has sought for the following relief: “Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this writ application by granting following reliefs:- (A) A writ of certiorari be issued quashing the impugned rejection order under Annexure-12. (B) An appropriate writ / writs be issued Page 2 of 11. directing the 0pp. Parties to sanction and release pension and all pensionary benefits by counting the entire service period of the petitioner from 15.5.96 to till the date of retirement i.e.31.8.2019 as the qualifying service period towards pension and pensioanry benefits along with interest as deemed fit and proper following the principles of law laid down in the case of Nalina Kumar Sarangi in judgment dtd.5.8.2022 passed in W.P.C (OAC) No. 2642 of 2011, confirmed vide order dt.03.11.2023 in W.A. No.l526 of 2023 and in view of order dated 09.04.2025 passed in S.L.P.(Civil) Diary No.12409/2025 under Annexure-14 & 15 respectively within a stipulated time. (C) Necessary direction / directions be made directing the 0pp. Parties to release all arrear financial benefits as due and admissible in consequence of the re-instatement order and in view of the principles of law laid down in the case of State of U.P and others Versus Arvind Ku. Srivastava reported in (2015) 1 SCC, Page 347y so also in the case of State ofKarnataka & Other Vs. C. Lalitha reported in 2006(2) SCC- 747 within a stipulated time. (D ) Or in alternative, in the interest of justice & equity, any other appropriate Writ(s), direction(s), order(s) be passed so as to give complete relief to the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances of the case as this Hon'ble High court deem fit and proper. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound, shall ever pray.” 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner having Matric C.T. qualification was initially selected and was appointed as a Sikshya Karmi on 13.02.1992 and pursuant to such selection he has joined in service on 18.02.1992 Page 3 of 11. as per the letter under Annexure-1 to the writ application. The Petitioner, while continuing as Sikshya Karmi, was regularized as a Primary School Teacher along with other similarly situated teachers with effect from 15.05.1996 as per the letter of the S & ME Department, Government of Odisha dated 12.03.1996. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended by virtue of the very same letter one Nalini Kumar Sarangi was also regularised in her service on the very same day. 4. He further contended that while continuing as a regular teacher the Petitioner was again reverted back to the status of ad-hoc teacher along with other similarly situated teachers including the abovenamed Nalini Kumar Sarangi vide order dated 12.08.1997, without any notice or opportunity of hearing. The State Government took the decision vide its resolution dated 13.08.1987 under which the Petitioner was again taken back and restored as regular teacher with effect from 23.08.1997 at Annexure-3 to the writ application. The Petitioner, while continuing as a regular teacher at Akarpada Urdu Primary School, was terminated/disengagement from service as per the vide letter dated 06.04.2002 at Annexure-4. 5. Being aggrieved by such illegal termination/disengagement the Petitioner approached Page 4 of 11. this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.14625 of 2005 along with similarly situated other teachers who were initially appointed along with the Petitioner and were also regularized along with the Petitioner and consequentially disengaged along with the Petitioner. This Court vide order dated 07.02.2006 directed the State to take a decision keeping in view the fact that juniors to the Petitioner having been regularized in service as school teachers and in the event it is found that such a fact is correct, similar benefits were directed to be extended in favour of the Petitioner. 6. In compliance to the aforesaid order dated 07.02.2026 the State Administrative Tribunal passed an interim order dated 27.08.2009 in OA No.1963(C) of 2009 in respect of the Petitioner and similarly situated other persons thereby directing the State authority to take back the Petitioner in service pursuant to such order of the learned State Administrative Tribunal, the Director Elementary Education, Odisha, by virtue of order dated 28.08.2010, took back the Petitioner in service and he was restored in his former post. 7. The Petitioner while continuing as a regular primary school teacher was allowed to receive annual increment and revised the scale of pay a notional benefit with effect from 01.05.1997. Finally, on attaining the age of superannuation the Petitioner has retired from service with effect from 31.08.1919. The Page 5 of 11. pay of the Petitioner as well as the annual increment has also been revised as per the ORSP Rule applicable to the Petitioner and that such fact is evident from the service book of the Petitioner. 8. Since the Opposite Parties were not counting the entire service period of the Petitioner for the purpose of calculation of his pensionary as well as service benefits, the Petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.30668 of 2021. Such writ application was disposed of vide order dated 05.10.2021 with a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider the grievance of the Petitioner. The Opposite Party No.1 without considering the case of the Petitioner in its proper perspective as has been directed by this Court vide order dated 05.10.2021, rejected the claim of the Petitioner by virtue of order dated 24.06.2024. However, at the same time the juniors to the Petitioner namely, Bhubana Nanda Sahoo, Sachida Nanda Sahoo and Prafulla Kumar Mishra were all allowed the pensionary benefits. 9. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner, drawing the attention of this Court to the judgment dated 05.08.2022 of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nalina Kumar Sarangi vs. State of Odisha & others in W.P.(C) (OAC) No.2642 of 2011 submitted before this Court that a similarly situated government employee had earlier approached Page 6 of 11. the Tribunal. After abolition of the learned State Administrative Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court and the same was registered as WPC(OAC) No.2642 of 2011. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.08.2022 while considering the grievance of the Petitioner in that case namely, Nalina Kumar Sarangi, who stands in a similar footing in the present writ application, allowed the writ application. In the said writ application, the prayer of the Petitioner was for a direction to the Opposite Parties to regularize his service by extending all service benefits including the pensionary benefits and to fix the scale of pay according to the TBA scale and further to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the full salary of the Petitioner since the date of his appointment, treating his appointment to be regular for all purposes since 15.05.1996. The learned coordinate Bench by virtue of its judgment at Annexure-14 allowed the writ application and came to a conclusion that the service of the Petitioner in that case was terminated without any fault of the Petitioner and that the Petitioner remained out of employment as a result of such misdeed for the period from 06.04.2002 till 28.02.2011. As such, it was finally held that the Petitioner is not only entitled to get all service and pensionary benefits for the aforesaid period, he is also entitled to get the notional benefit by taking into account his initial appointment as the regular primary Page 7 of 11. school teacher with effect from 15.05.1996. 10. The aforesaid judgment of this Court in Nalina Kumar Sarangi was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the State-Opposite Party by filing SLP(Civil) Diary No.12409 of 2025. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by virtue of its order dated 09.04.2025 dismissed the SLP both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. Thus, the learned counsel for the Petitioner argued before this Court that the judgment dated 05.08.2022 in the case of Nalina Kumar Sarangi has attained finality after dismissal of the SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner further drawing a similarity between the Petitioner and the above named Nalina Kumar Sarangi, argued before this Court that both were appointed on the same date and were terminated and regularized on the very same date and were also retrenched on the very same date by virtue of a common order. Therefore, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended, the present Petitioner cannot be treated differently from the other employee namely, Nalina Kumar Sarangi who us similarly situated as implicated by the Opposite Parties in terms of the judgment of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submitted that the ratio laid down in the case of Nalina Kumar Sarangi is squarely applicable to the facts of the Page 8 of 11. Petitioner’s case. 12. Learned counsel for the State, on instruction from the BEO, Mahanga vide letter dated 21.02.2026, submitted before this Court that no provisional pension and other retiral benefits have been sanctioned to be paid to the present Petitioner owing to the reason of non-regularization of his service period and the Petitioner rendering less than 10 years of continuous service as is required under the pension rules, 1992. He further contended that the case of the Petitioner was considered by the Opposite Party No.1 vide order dated 24.06.2024. While attending to the grievance of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.1 has rejected the prayer of the Petitioner holding that he is not entitled to get pensionary benefit as per Rule 47(5) of the OCA Pension Rules, 1992 due to non-completion of the minimum qualifying service period of ten years. 13. In view of the aforesaid disqualification, learned counsel for the State contended that the Petitioner is not eligible to receive the pensionary benefits as has been claimed by him in the present writ application. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ application is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed. A copy of the instruction dated 21.02.2026 was produced before this Court and the same is taken on record. Page 9 of 11. 14. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective Parties, on a careful examination of the documents annexed to the writ application as well as the instruction received by the learned Additional Standing Court from the Block Education Officer, Mahanga, Opposite Party No.4 to the writ application vide his letter dated 21.02.2026, this Court found that pursuant to the earlier direction of this Court to consider the case of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30668 of 2021, the Opposite Party No.1 considered the case of the Petitioner and upon such consideration has come to a conclusion that since the Petitioner has not completed minimum ten years of service, he is not entitled to the pensionary benefit. 15. On a careful examination and scrutiny of the documents annexed to the present writ application, this Court observes that the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Sikshya Karmi with effect from 13.02.1992. Thereafter, his service was regularized by virtue of order dated 15.05.1996 at Annexure-2 along with many other including the abovenamed Nalina Kumar Sarangi. However, while continuing as such, the service of the Petitioner was terminated/disengaged by virtue of a common order dated 06.04.2002 at Annexure-4. Such list also contains the name of the many other candidates including one Nalina Kumar Sarangi whose case has already been decided by this Court and such judgment Page 10 of 11. of this Court has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is of the view that the present Petitioner stands in a similar footing with the abovenamed Nalina Kumar Sarangi and that the factual background of the Petitioner’s case as well as the abovenamed Nalina Kumar Sarangi’s case are almost identical. Since in the identical factual background, this Court has already made an adjudication and has rendered its judgment dated 05.08.2022 in WPC (OAC) No.2642 of 2011 which was eventually upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.04.2025 in SLP(C) Diary No.12409 of 2025, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the case of Nalina Kumar Sarangi. 17. In such view of the matter, the present writ application stands allowed in terms of the judgment dated 05.08.2022 passed in WPC (OAC) No.2642 of 2011. As a consequence thereof the rejection order dated 24.06.2024 at Annexure-12 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.1 to extend the benefits in favour of the Petitioner as has been extended to Nalina Kumar Sarangi, the Petitioner in WPC(OAC) No.2642 of 2011, within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. Page 11 of 11. 18. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rule. Sisir (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT