Disposed¶25

Balaram Samal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Mar 2026WP(C)/1913/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Work-charged establishment; notional regularization; old pension rule; pension and pensionary benefits; absorption in regular establishment; Kasidev Maharana O.A. No. 2559(C) of 1999; Narasu Pradhan WPC No-5377 of 2010; Pitambar Sahoo WPC NO-24041 of 2017; Pitabas Pradhan WPC No-24918/2013; Antaryami Sahoo WPC No-24744/2022; CONTC (CPC) No. 305 of 2000; fresh representation; Annexure-3; disposal of writ petition; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; 2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the Petitioner to make a fresh representation before Opposite Party No. 1 within three weeks enclosing all relevant documents and citations; Opposite Party No. 1 to take a lawful decision thereon within three months of receipt and communicate the order to the Petitioner. The substantive pension/regularization claims were not adjudicated. ¶25

Balaram Samal Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to receive pension as if he had retired from the regular establishment, with notional regularization of his work-charged service from completion of five years to superannuation, and grant of pension and pensionary benefits under the old rule. +2 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account the claim raised in the writ petition, liberty was granted to the Petitioner to make a fresh representation before Opposite Party No. 1, enclosing all relevant documents and citations in support of his claim, within a period of three (3) weeks.

¶21

Key takeaways

If such representation is filed within the stated period, Opposite Party No. 1 is to take a lawful decision on it within three (3) months from the date of receipt of the representation, and the order so passed is to be communicated to the Petitioner.ratio¶24
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition was disposed of.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, WP(C) No. 1913 of 2026 — Balaram Samal v. State of Odisha & Ors. — Order dated 10.03.2026 (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy). The Petitioner, claiming to be a work-charged employee, prayed for pension and pensionary benefits under the old rule as if he had retired from the regular establishment, notional regularization of his work-charged service from completion of five years to superannuation, absorption into the regular establishment in light of the tribunal orders dated 16.11.1999 in O.A. No. 2559(C) of 1999 (Kasidev Maharana v. State of Orissa & Ors.) and the line of orders relied upon in his prayer (Narasu Pradhan, WPC No-5377 of 2010, order dtd. 19.12.2011; State of Odisha v. Pitambar Sahoo, WPC NO-24041 of 2017, disposed 20.12.2017, affirmed in SLP (C) Diary No-30806 of 2018; confirmation in WP(C) No.7246 of 2018 dtd. 08.01.2018 and re-affirmation in Dairy No.23207 of 2018 dtd. 30.07.2018; common judgment dtd. 27.07.2021 in CONTC (CPC) No.305 of 2000; Pitabas Pradhan, WPC No-24918/2013, dtd. 28.06.2022, affirmed in SLP (Civil) Dairy No31176/2023; Antaryami Sahoo, WPC No-24744/2022, dtd. 28.09.2022, affirmed in SLP (Civil) Dairy No-52721/2024), and/or disposal of his pending representation (Annexure-3). The Court did not adjudicate the merits of the claim: it granted liberty to make a fresh representation before Opposite Party No. 1 enclosing all relevant documents and citations within three weeks, directed Opposite Party No. 1 to take a lawful decision thereon within three months of receipt and to communicate the order to the Petitioner, and disposed of the writ petition.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 1913 of 2026

¶2

Balaram Samal

¶3

..... Petitioner Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶6

..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶9

10.03.2026

¶10

Order No. 01

¶11

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

¶13

Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶14

“The petitioner, therefore prays that this Hon'ble 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 opp. parties to regularize the service of the petitioner 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 this Hon'ble Court vide order dtd. 19.12.2011 passed in WPC No-5377 of 2010 in a case of Narasu Pradhan Vrs. State of Odisha and subsequent decision of this Hon'ble Court in a case of State of Odisha Vrs. Pitambar Sahoo WPC NO-24041 of 2017 disposed of on 20.12.2017 which has been affirmed

¶15

Page 1 of 3.

¶16

in SLP (C) Diary No-30806 of 2018 and the entire benefit be given to him within a stipulated period.

¶17

And further to direct the opp. parties to take the petitioner in regular establishment 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 Hon'ble 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 (CPC) No.305 of 2000 and batch and in the light of order dtd.28.06.2022 passed in WPC No-24918/2013 (Pitabas Pradhan and others VRS. State Of Orissa and Others) which has been affirmed in SLP (Civil) Dairy No31176/2023 and in the light of order dtd. 28.09.2022 passed in WPC No-24744/2022 (Antaryami Sahoo Vrs. State of Odisha & Others) which has been affirmed in SLP (Civil) Dairy No-52721/2024 already implemented by the state by calculating the entire work charge service period.

¶18

And/or the Opp. Parties may kindly be directed to dispose the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-3 within a stipulated time;

¶19

And to pass any other writ(s)/direction(s)/ order(s) and this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper.

¶20

And for this Act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall remain ever pray.”

¶21

However, taking into account the claim raised in the present Writ Petition, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to make a fresh representation before Opp. Party No. 1 by enclosing all the relevant documents and citations in support of his claim, if any, within a period of three (3) weeks hence.

¶22

It is observed that if such representation is filed within the aforesaid time period, Opp. Party No. 1 shall do well to take a lawful

¶23

Page 2 of 3.

¶24

decision on the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such representation. The order so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 be communicated to the Petitioner.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶26

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶27

Sneha

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 13-Mar-2026 11:01:29

¶30

Page 3 of 3.

Balaram Samal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaram Samal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shantanu Kumar Swain Vs Aravind Agrawal, Commnr. Cum Secy., Govt. of Odisha, Higher Education

Siddhanta Kumar Mallik Vs State of Odisha

Trinath Prasad Mohanty Vs Union of India

Pandaba Charan Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Kanchanbala Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Aruni Kumar Rajhansa Vs State of Odisha