Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 7355 of 2026 Bidyadhar Pradhan ..... Petitioner Mr. B. Barik, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 21.07.2026 Order No. 02 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. B. Barik, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: I. Quashed the order No- 7508 dtd.01.05.2024 under Annexure-9. II. Direct/ order that pension, gratuity and other post retirement benefits shall be sanctioned and paid to the petitioner counting his entire period of service for the purpose of pension as per the settled position of law. Page 2 of 3. III. Direct/order that the unutilized leave salary shall be paid counting the entire period of service. IV. Direct/order that the arrear differential pensionary dues shall carry 12% interest from the date of entitlement. And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court would be deem fit and proper as facts and circumstances of the case. And for the said act of kindness, the petitioners shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. It is contended that Petitioner entered into service as a DLR w.e.f.08.01.1982 and while continuing as such, he was brought over to the Work Charged Establishment on 17.01.2011 vide order under Annexure-1. 4.1. It is further contended that while so continuing in the Work Charged Establishment vide order dtd.29.09.2018, Petitioner was regularized and while continuing as a regular employee, he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2019 under Annexure- 3. 4.2. However, on the ground that Petitioner does not have the required qualifying service to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits, Petitioner’s claim has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.01.05.2024 under Annexure-9. 4.3. It is contended that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected is no more sustainable, in view of the decision rendered Page 3 of 3. by this Court vide judgment dtd.19.05.2026 in W.P.(C) No. 9896 of 2026. It is accordingly contended that the matter be remitted to Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision, taking into account the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 9896 of 2026. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate however contended that since Petitioner does not have the required qualifying service, he is not entitled to get the benefit, which has been rightly rejected. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court taking into account the fact that Petitioner continued under the Opp. Parties as a DLR w.e.f.08.01.1982, in the Work Charged Establishment w.e.f.17.01.2011 and in the regular establishment w.e.f.29.09.2018, till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2019, is of the view that Petitioner’s claim is covered by the Judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 9896 of 2026. 6.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.01.05.2024 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure- 9. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision, taking into account judgment dtd.19.05.2026 in W.P.(C) No. 9896 of 2026. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order along with judgment dtd.19.05.2026 so passed in W.P.(C) No. 9896 of 2026 for compliance before Opp. Party No. 1. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha