Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the State of Odisha assailing the judgment and order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.23145 of 2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed with a direction to notionally regularise the service of the deceased work-charged employee for a day prior to his superannuation and to extend pensionary and consequential benefits.

2. The factual matrix, in brief, is as follows. The respondent- Basanti Das, is the widow of Late Narendra Prasad Das, who was initially engaged under the Water Resources Department as a Non- Muster Roll (NMR) worker and was subsequently brought over to the work-charged establishment on 27.11.1981. He continued to serve under the work-charged establishment without being absorbed into the regular pensionable establishment and ultimately retired from service on 30.09.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. During his lifetime, no order of regularisation was issued in his favour, nor was he extended pension or pensionary benefits applicable to regular government servants.

After the death of her husband on 28.04.2022, the respondent approached the authorities seeking regularisation of his service at least notionally prior to retirement and grant of pensionary benefits, including family pension, by relying upon various resolutions of the Finance Department and a line of judicial precedents relating to work-charged employees. Earlier, she had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.31550 of 2022, which was disposed of on 28.11.2022 with an observation to consider her representation in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the competent authority rejected her claim by order dated 29.05.2023, primarily on the ground that the deceased employee was never absorbed in the regular establishment and, therefore, was not entitled to pension under the applicable rules.

Aggrieved by the said rejection, the respondent filed W.P.(C) No.23145 of 2023. The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 22.11.2023, allowed the writ petition, holding that the case of the respondent stood covered by earlier decisions relating to similarly situated work-charged employees, and directed the appellants to notionally regularise the service of the deceased employee for a day prior to his retirement and to extend pensionary and consequential benefits to the respondent within a stipulated period.

3. Having examined the factual backdrop of the case and the nature of the relief granted by the learned Single Judge, this Court is required to consider whether the respondent’s claim falls within the class of cases to which the settled legal position governing work-charged employees is applicable. The determinative factors are not the mere nomenclature of the post held by the deceased employee, but the length and continuity of service rendered, the existence of enabling executive instructions, and the reason for non-extension of pensionary benefits.

4. From the materials on record, it is evident that the deceased employee had rendered long and uninterrupted service under the work-charged establishment and had completed well beyond the minimum qualifying period prescribed for consideration of pensionary benefits under the Finance Department Memorandum dated 06.03.1990. There is no dispute raised by the appellants with regard to continuity of service, eligibility in terms of length of service, or any statutory disqualification. The sole ground on which pension was denied is that no formal order bringing him over to the regular establishment was issued prior to his superannuation.

The record further discloses that the failure to absorb the deceased employee into the regular establishment was not attributable to any omission or lapse on his part. There is nothing to indicate that he was ever found unsuitable, that his case was rejected on merits, or that he was ineligible under the governing resolutions. On the contrary, the denial flows purely from administrative inaction, despite the existence of policy decisions enabling absorption and counting of work-charged service towards pensionary benefits.

5. In Narusu Pradhan vs. State of Orissa, O.A. No.1189(C) of 2006, the learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, after an exhaustive scrutiny of the Finance Department resolutions and binding judicial precedents, held that denial of pensionary benefits to a work-charged employee who had rendered more than three decades of service amounted to unjust and unequal treatment. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as below:

                   “Considering the argument and facts on record and various decisions of this Tribunal, the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Apex Court of India, it is obvious that Govt. in pursuance of the recommendations of the pay committee issued F.D.Resolution No.F-47/64-4419/F dated 22.01.65 and No.Pen 7/90-5483 dated 6.3.90 for regularization of services of work charged employees and have also provided for this in Rule 18(3) of the OCS(P) Rules, 1992. The aforesaid Resolution for amelioration of conditions of service of work charged employees states that they are brought over to the regular establishment after completing five years of continuous service in case the work is of a permanent nature. In the present case, it is admitted that the applicant has already put in more than 30 years of service with a regular pay scale and depriving him of such benefits at this stage may not be advisable particularly in view of the catena of decisions submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, the latest being O.A. No.1869/2011, Nrusingha Charan Sahoo -Vrs- State of Orissa and others and decided on 15.09.2005 in which the Hon’ble Tribunal observed as follows:

                   “But the fact remains that persons in work charged establishment though rendered service like persons in the regular establishment are treated as unequal which is not approved by our constitution. Practically keeping in view this objective, the State Govt. from time to time issued orders giving direction for regularization of different employees as is indicated herein above. So it is expected that the State Govt. should take effective steps for passing appropriate orders for regularization of such work charged employees so that in each case, they are not required to move the Tribunal or the Hon’ble High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court for their redressal. It is true that such employees cannot be absorbed without sanctioned posts and only on that ground the case of the Petitioner could not be considered. But the fact remains that he rendered service in a particular scale of pay which was effective for more than 20 years thereby indicating that for all practical purposes he was rendering service in a regular establishment. But the only gap in such appointment is that the post was not created in the regular establishment. This is to be construed as administrative lapse for which the employed should not suffer. So, it is expected that the State Govt. will take effective steps for regularization of the services of the work charged employees in future and if necessary by way of creating supernumerary posts and thereafter to fix salary on notional basis and direct payment of necessary pensionary benefits on that basis. Pending such decision by the Govt. and keeping in view the case of the present petitioner, I direct the State Govt. to regularize his service in a supernumerary post after absorbing him on completion of five years of service and then to fix his salary on notional basis and thereafter to pass necessary orders for release of pension and other retirement benefits in accordance with law”

                   Considering all aspects, the aforesaid decision is made “ipso facto” applicable to this case as the applicant is similar placed. The respondents are directed to regularize the applicant against available post on completion of five years of service in the work charged establishment and fix his pay allowing him notional increment as due and then pay him pensionary dues taking his notional increments into account as decided in the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant. This task be completed within a period of six months.”

6. In the aforesaid decision, the learned Tribunal expressly characterised the failure to create regular posts or to issue absorption orders as an administrative lapse, for which the employee could not be made to suffer, and directed regularisation by creation of a supernumerary post with notional fixation of pay for the limited purpose of pension. The said decision was affirmed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2010 and thereafter by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereby giving finality to the principle so enunciated.

7. The same principle was reiterated in Kasidev Maharana vs. State of Orissa before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No.2559(C) of 1999, wherein it was held as follows:

                   “Similar cases came before this Tribunal in O.A.973/89 and O.A.920/97 as also O.A.2309/97. It has been observed that the govt. in their finance department resolution dated 22.01.65 decided for absorption of such employees after completion of 5 years in work charge establishment. Again in the Finance Department office Memorandum dated 6.3.90 laid down that the employees under work charge establishment are entitled to get pension. It was also decided in O.A.1819/96 that benefits of absorption in regular establishment will be available not only to serving work charged employees but also to those who have already retired.

                   In the cases at hand, the applicants are all serving work charged employees and are entitled to be absorbed in the regular establishment in terms of the Finance Department resolution dated 22.1.65

                   In conformity with the order referred to above, I would like to direct the respondents to absorb the applications in the establishment post with effect from the date they have completed 5 years of continuous service. After such absorption in the regular establishment, their annual increments as may be found due and admissible in the various revised pay scales be considered within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

8. From the above decision, it is clear that the benefit of absorption and pension is available not only to serving work- charged employees but also to those who had already retired, provided they had completed the requisite qualifying service. The learned Tribunal directed absorption from the date of completion of five years of continuous service and consequential fixation for pensionary purposes. When this order was challenged by the State in W.P.(C) No.7246 of 2016, this Court vide order dated 08.01.2018 declined to interfere, holding that the Finance Department Resolution dated 22.01.1965 squarely applied and that the Tribunal had passed a just and reasoned order.

9. Furthermore, in Pradip Kumar Panigrahi vs. State of Odisha in W.P.(C) No.38771 of 2020, the Co-ordinated Bench of this Court was confronted with an identical situation where a work-charged employee, despite having completed the qualifying period of service, was denied pension solely on the ground that no formal order of regularisation had been issued during his service tenure. This Court treated notional absorption as a legally permissible mechanism to effectuate the policy decision of the State and to prevent pensionary benefits from being defeated by administrative inaction. It was held as follows:

                   “7. Such was the issue in case of one Narusu Pradhan, a work charged employee, wherein after the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P No. 22498 of 2012, the authorities passed an office order on 08.05.2013 by creating supernumerary post, regularized his service for the purpose of sanctioning pension.

                   8. This Court had also occasion to deal with this issue again in W.P.(C) No. 1534 of 2008, i.e. in the case of State of Orissa and others v. Jyostna Rani Patnaik and others, wherein direction of the Tribunal to regularize the service of the applicant’s husband by way of creating a supernumerary post, if necessary from the time he had completed 5 years of service as work-charged employee by bringing him over to regular establishment was challenged before this Court by the State authorities. The said case was disposed of vide judgment dated 19.12.2016, affirming the view expressed by the Tribunal.

                   × × ×

                   11. It was also contended that relying on such decision, may other writ petitions, such as OJC No. 12017 of 2000 (decided on 16.04.2019), W.P.(C) No. 12017 of 2000 (decided on 16.04.2019) have also been disposed of.

                   12. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the observations/ directions given in aforementioned cases. Accordingly this Court directs that the petitioner should be treated to have been regularized in service at least one day prior to his superannuation, by creating supernumerary post, if necessary and accordingly he shall be extended with the pensionary benefits as would be admissible to him. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

10. The consistent thread running through the decisions of Narusu Pradhan (supra), Kasidev Maharana (supra), and Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi (supra), as referred to hereinabove is that where the governing executive instructions contemplate absorption of work-charged employees upon completion of the prescribed qualifying service and permit counting of such service for pensionary benefits, denial of pension solely on the ground of absence of a formal absorption order is legally unsustainable. The entitlement of pensionary benefit flowing from such policy decisions cannot be defeated by administrative inaction or procedural omission on the part of the employer.

11. In that context, directions granting limited notional absorption, including by creation of a supernumerary post where necessary, do not amount to substantive retrospective regularisation or conferment of additional service benefits. Such directions are remedial in character, intended only to operationalise the existing policy framework and to prevent otherwise eligible employees from being deprived of pension on hyper-technical grounds attributable solely to employer inaction.

12. An employee who has rendered long and continuous service under a work-charged establishment in terms of the governing resolutions cannot be placed at a disadvantage merely because the employer failed to take timely administrative steps. The State, having framed policies for amelioration of service conditions of such employees, is under a corresponding obligation to implement them meaningfully, and failure to do so cannot be permitted to prejudice post-retiral security. Such limited notional intervention neither disturbs the service hierarchy nor confers collateral service benefits such as back wages or seniority. The relief is confined strictly to pensionary benefits, which are in the nature of deferred compensation and social security, and which courts have consistently treated not as a matter of discretion, but as a right flowing from the applicable service framework.

13. It goes without saying that pension being a measure of post-retiral social security, the State cannot be permitted to frustrate its own executive decisions by inaction. Once eligibility under the governing instructions is established, the consequential pensionary benefits must follow. Such a direction represents a measured application of settled law to prevent manifest injustice and to ensure that policy decisions are not rendered illusory by administrative inertia.

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court too, has recently affirmed the same position in Bhola Nath vs. State of Jharkhand, 2026 INSC 99, reiterating that pension, being a facet of social security and a constitutional guarantee against arbitrariness, cannot be denied on technical or procedural grounds when substantive eligibility stands established.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present case clearly falls within the category of cases where long and continuous service under the work-charged establishment, coupled with employer inaction despite enabling policy decisions, warrants limited notional intervention to effectuate pensionary entitlement.

16. In the absence of any distinguishing factual or legal circumstance demonstrated by the appellants, this Court finds no error in the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.23145 of 2023 vide order dated 22.11.2023, warranting interference in intra-court appellate jurisdiction.

The present Writ Appeal is hence dismissed with the above observation.