1. Heard Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.P. Behera, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

                   “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to :

                   (a) Issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to Show Cause as to why the services of the Petitioner shall not be included in the pensionable establishment under the of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, and as to why the deduction of the General Provident Fund amount under the provisions of General Provident Fund (Odisha) Rules, 1938 shall not be made from his date of joining;

                   (b) If the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, a Writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the Opposite Parties for inclusion of the services of the Petitioner in the pensionable establishment under the provisions of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, and the General Provident Fund amount under the provisions of the General Provident Fund (Odisha) Rules, 1938 be deducted from his date of joining within a stipulated time;

                   (c) Quash/Set-Aside that the impugned Order dated 26- 10-2021 (under Annexure-1) issued by Opposite Party No.2-Director, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Odisha;

                   (d) Direct the Opposite Parties to enroll the Petitioner in the General Provident Fund Scheme of the Government of Odisha at par with similarly situated Government Servants by counting his past service from the initial date of his appointment i.e. 14- 01-1993;

                   (e) Direct the Opposite Parties to allow all consequential benefits of service at par with other Government Servants from the initial date of appointment of the Petitioner;

                   (f) The Opposite Parties be directed to grant all service benefits in favour of the Petitioner from the Petitioner from the date of his initial appointment 14-01-1993 (Annexure-4) and to release his annual increments and pay revisions and accordingly refix his pay from the date of appointment 14-01-1993 (Annexure-4) and release all arrears accordingly.”

                   (g) Pass such other Writ(s)/Order(s) and/or Direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bonafide interest of justice.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after due creation of post of Asst. Operator under the State plan vide letter dated 20.01.1992 under Annexure-2 and by following due procedure of law, petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Operator on adhoc basis against reserved vacancy meant for ST candidates, for a period of 44 days, vide order dated 14.01.1993 under Annexure-4.

                   3.1. It is contended that even though petitioner was so appointed on adhoc basis against ST vacancy of 44 days basis with one day artificial break, but he was allowed to continue without any break in service all through, till he was regularized vide order dated 13.11.2015 under Annexure-10 but w.e.f. 17.09.2013.

                   3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 17.09.2013 vide order dated 13.11.2015 under Annexure-10 and he was not extended with the benefit of contribution under GPF Scheme and so also his coverage under the OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short “Rules, 1992”), he made several applications claiming extension of the said benefit in his favour.

                   3.3. Ultimately, his application under Annexure-13, when was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.273 of 2021. This Court vide order dated 15.01.2021, when directed for consideration of the petitioner’s claim for his coverage under the Rules, 1992 as well as GPF (Odisha) Rules, 1938 (in short “Rules, 1938), the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 25.10.2021 under Annexure-1 inter alia on the ground that petitioner since continued on adhoc basis in terms of order of appointment issued on 14.01.1993 and continued as such till he was regularized w.e.f. 17.09.2013 vide order dated 13.11.2015 under Annexure-10, in view of the amendment carried to the 1992 Rules, so notified w.e.f. 24.09.2005, making it effective from 01.01.2005, petitioner is not entitled for his coverage under the Rules, 1938 and under the Old Pension Rule.

                   3.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since petitioner was duly appointed against a vacant sanctioned post of ST on adhoc basis vide order dated 14.01.1993 under Annexure-4 and he continued as such till he was ultimately regularized w.e.f. 17.09.2013 vide order dated 13.11.2015 under Annexure-10, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab and Others under Annexure-11 and the decision of this Court in the case of Anand Dash Vs. State of Odisha and Others, (judgment dated 20.04.2013 in W.P.(C) No.15433 of 2012) under Annexure-17, petitioner is eligible and entitled for his coverage under the Rules, 1992 as well as Rules, 1938.

                   3.5. However, without proper appreciation of the judgment passed in the case of Harbans Lal as well as Anand Dash so cited (supra), claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 25.10.2021 under Annexure-1. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and petitioner is entitled for his coverage under the Rules, 1992 as well as Rules, 1938.

4. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand when made submission supporting the impugned order of rejection, this Court passed the following order on 18.11.2025:-

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

                   2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

                   3. Considering the nature of relief claimed and the challenge made in the Writ Petition, this Court directs learned Addl. Govt. Advocate to obtain instruction as to whether while appointing the Petitioner on ad-hoc basis against S.T vacancy, pursuant to the Advertisement issued under Annexure-3, prior permission of the concerned Department was taken.

                   4. As requested, list this matter in the week commencing 8th December, 2025.”

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on instruction contended that while providing appointment to the petitioner against ST vacancy on adhoc basis, prior permission of the concerned department was never taken. However, relying on the stand taken in the counter affidavit and justifying the rejection so available under Annexure-1, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that since petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 17.09.2013 vide order dated 13.11.2015 under Annexure-10, because of the amendment carried to the Rules, 1992, so notified on 24.09.2005 making it effective from 01.01.2005, petitioner’s claim was duly considered and rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-1.

                   5.1. It is contended that in the advertisement issued under Annexure-3, after completing the recruitment process, the selection committee recommended the names of 28 general, 3 S.T. and 5 S.C. candidates for their appointment as against the post of Assistant Operator in order of merit. Petitioner was selected as against U.R. category. But taking into account the vacancy available under U.R. category at 12 and petitioner being placed below Sl. No.12, he was appointed on adhoc basis, against S.T. vacancy vide order of appointment issued on 14.01.1993 under Annexure-4.

                   5.2. It is contended that since petitioner was not found eligible at the relevant point of time for his appointment against U.R. Vacancy, so sanctioned vide letter dated 20.01.1992 under Annexure-2 and he was only regularized in the year 2015 but w.e.f. 17.09.2013, his claim for coverage under the Rules, 1992 and the Rules, 1938 is not at all entertainable and the same has been rightly rejected. Stand taken in Para-8 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:-

                   “.8. That in reply to the averments made in the para-06 & 07, it is humbly submitted that an Advertisement was published in two leading Oriya dailies inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up 20 nos. of Assistant Operators in 1 & PR Department vide this Department Letter No.9797 dated 25.02.1992.

                   A copy of the said letter and Advertisement No.3-Z are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A/1 & Annexure-B/1 respectively.

                   After conducting a practical test and Viva Voce Test among the 91 valid applicants, a select list was prepared by the Selection Committee held on 14.09.92 to 18.09.92. During selection process, 28 vacancies were available, the Selection committee recommended the names of 28 General, 03 ST and 05 SC candidates for appointment as Assistant Operators in order of merit. In the said select list the petitioner’s name was found place in the general category candidates.

                   A copy of the proceeding of the Selection Committee held on 14.09.92 to 18.09.92 is annexed as Annexure-C/1.

                   The Petitioner could not be given regular appointment as all the 12 nos. of vacancies meant for general category candidates were exhausted after giving appointment to 12 nos. of General candidates who had secured higher rank in the select List.

                   In view of the above facts and circumstances, Hon’ble Minister, I & PR passed orders on 17.12.1992 to give temporary appointments to ten general category candidates at SI. No.13 to 22 until regular appointment is made and simultaneously to move a proposal to ST & SC Development Department to de-reserve the posts. Accordingly the case of the petitioner was considered and he was appointed as Assistant Operator on ad hoc basis for 44 days with one day break.”

                   5.3. It is also contended that in view of the circular issued by the Finance Department on 18.07.2007, petitioner since was regularized after 01.01.2005, he cannot be covered either under the Rules, 1992 or the Rules, 1938. Stand taken in Para-11 in that regard reads as follows:-

                   “11. That in reply to the averments made in para 10 & 11, it is humbly submitted that Finance Department by its Circular No. 30447/F dated 18.07.2007 had issued a clarification that the persons who are appointed under job contract and work charged establishment prior to 01.01.2005 and brought over to regular establishment on or after 01.01.2005 will be governed under OCS (Pension) Rules 1992 and G.P.F rules, but, the petitioner being appointed in regular establishment w.e.f 17.09.2013, his claim for coverage under the O.C.S (Pension) Rules, 1992 and in G.P.F rule is extraneous as he has neither served in work-charged nor in Job-contract establishment. Further, Finance Department Notification No. 36049 dated 31.08.2007 clearly stipulates that General Provident Fund (Orissa) Rules, 1938 shall not apply to Government servants appointed on or after 1st January,2005 to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the state, either temporarily or permanently . A copy of the said notification is annexed as Annexure - 7 to the writ petition.”

                   5.4. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that with due sanction of required posts of Assistant Operator vide Annexure-2 and basing on the advertisement issued under Annexure-3, petitioner faced the selection process for the post in question.

                   6.1. It is not disputed that petitioner since could not come within the vacancy meant for U.R. category, he was appointed against a S.T. Vacancy vide order dated 14.01.1993 on adhoc basis. It is also not disputed that petitioner was allowed to continue on such adhoc basis till he was ultimately regularized w.e.f. 17.09.2013 vide order dated 13.11.2015 under Annexure-10.

                   6.2. Even though while providing such appointment on adhoc basis, consent of the concerned department was not taken, it is the view of this Court that since petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned vacant post of S.T., so sanctioned vide letter dated 20.01.1992, under Annexure-3 and continued as such till he was regularized vide order dated 13.11.2015 but w.e.f. 17.09.2013, it cannot be said that petitioner’s claim is not covered under the Rules, 1992 and Rules, 1938.

                   6.3. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Harbans Lal as well as Anand Dash so cited (supra) and the recent decision in the case of Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Another, this Court is of the view that ground on which petitioner’s claim has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-19 of the judgment in the case of Dharam Singh has held as follows:-

                   “19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions:

                   i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above.

                   ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment.

                   iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgment.

                   iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement.

                   v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement.”

                   6.4. Therefore, while quashing the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 under Annexure-1, this Court directs Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2 to allow the petitioner for his coverage under the Rules, 1992 as well as Rules, 1938. This Court directs Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2 to pass appropriate order in that regard within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.