Ramakrushna Dikhit Vs State of Odisha

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court is inclined to recall order dated 12.12.2025 and a fresh order is passed in the Writ Petition.

¶15

The I.A. accordingly stands disposed of.

¶16

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶17

P.T.O.

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

04. W.P.(C) No. 21504 of 2024

¶20

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the impugned order dated 18.07.2024, so passed by the Govt.-O.P. No.1 under Annexure-8. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner for extension of the benefit of pension and by treating the petitioner to have retired from regular establishment prior to his retirement under OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 was rejected.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was engaged as a NMR in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3. It is contended that even though petitioner was engaged as a NMR w.e.f. 01.11.1986, but in terms of the finance department Resolution issued on 15.05.1997 under Annexure-1, no step was taken to regularize him in his services. Not only that on the face of such long continuance, petitioner’s claim was also not considered for absorption in the regular establishment in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC-1.

¶24

4.1. However, in the meantime vide order dated 08.01.2010 so issued under Annexure-4, petitioner was brought over to the work charge establishment as against the post of Khalasi. While so continuing in the work charge establishment, petitioner retired from

¶25

Page 2 of 8

¶26

// 3 //

¶27

services on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.04.2021 in terms of order dated 30.04.2021 so issued under Annexure-3.

¶28

4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though petitioner continued as a NMR w.e.f. 01.11.1986 and in the work charge establishment as a Khalasi w.e.f. 08.01.2010 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2021, but no step was ever taken to regularize him in his services for the purpose of sanction of pension and other pensionary benefits under OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.

¶29

4.3. It is contended that seeking his absorption in the regular establishment for the purpose of sanction of pension and other pensionary benefits, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18681 of 2023. This Court vide order dated 13.06.2023 under Annexure-4, when permitted the petitioner to make a fresh representation before Opp. Party No.1 for its consideration in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.606 of 2015 decided on 05.07.2018 ( Sarbeswar Bhujabala Vrs. State of Odisha and Others ), petitioner made a detailed Representation under Annexure-5.

¶30

4.4. However, such claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 16.12.2023 under Annexure-6. Petitioner accordingly challenging such order, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 59 of 2024. This Court while quashing order dated16.12.2023, disposed of the Writ Petition vide order dated 08.01.2024 under Annexure-7 and directed Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision taking into account the decision in the case of Sarbeswar

¶31

Page 3 of 8

¶32

// 4 //

¶33

Bhujabala as well as Khageswar Jena Vs. State of Odisha and Others (W.P.(C) No.29993 of 2022), disposed of on 18.11.2022.

¶34

4.5. It is contended that on the face of such order passed by this Court on the 2^nd occasion under Annexure-7, petitioner’s claim was rejected vide the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 under Annexure-8.

¶35

4.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that order passed by this Court in the case of Khageswar Jena in the meantime has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with a batch of Special Leave Petition in S.L.P(Civil) Diary NO.33400 of 2023 and batch, decided on 24.07.2025 (State of Odisha and Others Vrs. G. Balakrishna and Others ).

¶36

4.7. It is also contended that even though claim of the petitioner on the face of the order passed by this Court under Annexure-7 was rejected vide the impugned order, similar order passed in respect of similarly situated employee in W.P.(C) No.97 of 2024 ( Kailash Chandra Panda Vs. State of Odisha and Others ) was allowed by the Govt. by creating a supernumerary Group-D Post of Khalasi vide order dated 18.10.2025. (Copy of the order dated 18.10.2025, so produced in Court be kept in record).

¶37

4.8. Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly contended that since order passed by this Court in the case of Khageswar Jena as cited (supra) after being confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha and Others Vs. G. Balakrishna vide judgment dated 24.07.2025, rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the ground indicated in the impugned order, is no more sustainable.

¶38

Page 4 of 8

¶39

// 5 //

¶40

4.9. It is also contended that after dismissal of the SLP in the case of G. Balakrishna as cited (supra), State is in the process to implement the order passed by this Court in different Writ Petitions including the Writ Petition in the case of Khageswar Jena . It is accordingly contended that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶41

Even though notice of the Writ Petition has been issued since 03.09.2024, but no counter affidavit has been filed as yet. However, basing on the available materials, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that since petitioner prior to his retirement, never made any claim to get the benefit of regularisation and consequential sanction of pension and pensionary benefits, and such a claim was only made in the year 2023, by filing W.P.(C) No.18681 of 2023, petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization for the purpose of getting the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits.

¶42

5.1. It is further contended that since claim of the petitioner on the face of the order passed by this Court on 2 (two) occasions, has been rejected and last such rejection is under Annexure-8, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the same. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order has been rightly passed.

¶43

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that petitioner was engaged as a NMR in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3 on 01.11.1986. On the face of his continuance w.e.f. 01.11.1986, no step was taken by the State to regularize him in the services in terms of the stipulation

¶44

Page 5 of 8

¶45

// 6 //

¶46

contained under Finance Department Resolution dated 15.05.1997 and so also decision in the case of Uma Devi as cited (supra). Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi in Para-44 has held as follows:-

¶47

“ 44 . One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra) and B.N. Nagarajan (Supra), and referred to in paragraph-15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one- time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wages are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgement, but there should be no further by passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”

¶48

Page 6 of 8

¶49

// 7 //

¶50

6.1. However, petitioner vide order dated 08.01.2010 was brought over to the work charge establishment and while continuing as such, he retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2021. After his retirement from service, petitioner raised his claim to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits with due absorption in the regular establishment. Such claim of the petitioner when was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) NO.18681 of 2023.

¶51

6.2. This Court when directed for consideration of his claim, the same was rejected vide order dated16.12.2023 under Annexure-6. Order passed on 16.12.2023 when was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.59 of 2024, this Court while quashing the said order, again directed Opp. Party No.1 to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the order passed in the case of Sarbeswar Bhujabala as well as Khageswar Jena .

¶52

6.3. It is found that the order passed by this Court in the case of Khageswar Jena and similar writ petitions has been upheld by the Apex Court in a batch of Civil Appeals in State of Odisha and Others Vs. G. Balakrishna (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Dairy No.33400 of 2023 and batch, disposed of on 24.07.2025).

¶53

6.4. After such dismissal of the batch of Civil Appeals, State is now in the process to extend the benefit in favour of those employees. It is also found that similar order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.97 of 2024 has been implemented by the Govt. vide order dated 18.10.2025. Taking into account the benefit extended in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.97 of 2024 and confirmation

¶54

Page 7 of 8

¶55

// 8 //

¶56

of the order passed by this Court in the case of Khageswar Jena by the Apex Court in the case of G. Balakrishna and Others , this Court is of the view that the ground on which petitioner’s claim vide the impugned order under Annexure-8 has been rejected, is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶57

6.5. Therefore, while quashing order dated18.07.2024 under Annexure-8, this Court directs O.P.No.1 to extend the benefit as due and admissible in the light of the order passed in the case of Khageswar Jena so confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of G. Balakrishna and Others . This Court directs O.P. No.1 to do the needful and complete the entire exercise with regard to absorption in the regular establishment and release of pension and other pensionary benefits, within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶58

The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶59

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶60

Sneha

¶61

Signature Not Verified

¶62

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:26:38

¶63

Page 8 of 8

Ramakrushna Dikhit v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrushna Dikhit 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dayanidhi Upadhyay Vs State of Odisha

Chandra Sekhar Padhy Vs State of Odisha

Abhishek Patnaik Vs Srikant Tarai, Oas

Susama Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Janhabi Brahma Vs State of Odisha

Basanta Swain Vs State of Orissa