Orissa High Court
Dillip Kumar Patel vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 11 August, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C ) No.21773 of 2025
Dillip Kumar Patel .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Jena, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Party
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
11.08.2025
Order No.
1. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.
3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with
the following prayer:-
It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that
this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased
to:
(i) Admit the writ application.
(ii) Call for the records.
(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or
any other appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions directing
the opposite parties more particularly
opposite party Nos.2 & 3 for allotment of
Provident Fund Account in favour of the
Petitioner as per the provisions provided
under the Old General Provident Fund
(Orissa) Rules, 1938 and to include the
service of the Petitioner under the old Orissa
// 2 //
Civil Service (Pension ) Rules, 1992, and to
extend the benefit of Penion on account of his
retirement as per the old Orissa Civil Service
(Pension) Rules, 1992, keeping in view the
law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the
case of Dambarudhar Mohanta Vs. State of
Odisha and others W.P.(C ) NO.4045 of 2025
disposed of on 16.05.2025 and in the case
of Tushar Kumar Mukherjee Vs. State of
Odisha (W.P.(C ) NO.23073 of 2015 disposed
of on 15.09.2017, so also the similar
judgment passed by the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in the case of Harbans
Lal Vrs. State of Punjab , C.W. (P ) NO.2371
of 2010 disposed of on 31.08.2010 which
has been made confirmed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court n SLP (Civil) No.17901 of 2011
disposed of on 30.07.2012 (State of
Himachal Pradesh & Another Vs. Sheela Devi
reported in 2023 Live Law (SC ) 662 and in
the case of S.D. Jayaprakash & Others Vs.
Union of India reported in 2025 SCC Online
SC 973 and further the Petitioner be
extended with all other consequential, service
and retiral benefits including Gratuity as due
and admissible within a reasonable time to
be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
And/or pass such other order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court
may deems fit and proper for the ends of
justice.
And for the said act of kindness, the
Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that though
highlighting his grievances, Petitioner has filed a representation
at Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition before the Opp. Party No.1,
but till date nothing has been done in the matter. In such
background, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays that a
direction be issued to Opposite Party No. 1 to take a decision on
the above noted Petition within a specific time period.
5. Considering the submissions made and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court
// 3 //
directs Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the above
noted petition in accordance with law, within a period of three
(3) months from the date of receipt of this order with due
communication to the Petitioner.
6. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Sangita
Reason: AUTHENTICATION OF ORDER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
