[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ramakanta Panigrahi vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 12 January, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.397 of 2026
Ramakanta Panigrahi ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Jyotirmay Gupta
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Director Of Secondary Education, Represented by Adv. -
Odisha Mr. U.C.Jena, A.S.C.
3) District Education Officer,
Balasore
4) Controller Of Accounts, Odisha
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 12.01.2026
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused
the writ application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"The petitioner therefore humble prays that the
Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this
case, issue notice to opposite parties for show cause
and after hearing both the sides may be pleased to
issue a writ of Mandamus/certiorari by directing the
opposite parties particularly to O.P.No.-1 and 4 to
take immediate steps to grant the pension in favour of
the petitioner in terms of the principles decided in the
case of Judgment dated 12.01.2024 in W,P.(C) No.
17067 of 2023 (Hemanta Kumar Chhotaray -v- State
of Odisha & others) and batch of cases vide Annexure-
5 within stipulated period with cost.
AND
Further be pleased to pass any other
order/Direction(s) which this Hon'ble Court thinks fit
and proper to this case."
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
issue involved in the present writ application has already been
adjudicated in an identical matter by the coordinate bench in
Rekhanjali Behera vs. State of Odisha and others decided in
W.P.(C) No.32964 of 2025 vide order dated 10.12.2025. In such
view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that
the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit at par with the abovenoted
Rekhanjali Behera. It was also contended that the learned coordinate
bench has adjudicated a similar matter in Hemant Kumar Chhotaray
vs. State of Odisha and others decided on 12.01.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
the Petitioner has not approached the Competent Authority for
redressal of his grievance. In such view of the matter, learned counsel
for the State contended that in the event this Court directs the
Competent Authority to consider the grievance of the Petitioner, in
the event the Petitioner approaches the Competent Authority, he will
have no objection the same.
6. Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned
counsel for the parties, keeping in view the principle of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deokinandan Prasad vs.
State of Bihar, reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 as well as D.S. Nakara
vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 laying down the
principle that pension is not a boundary and that the delay in
considering disbursal of the pensionary benefit is required to be dealt
with strict action, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present
writ application by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the
Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation taking therein
all the grounds along with all supporting documents within three
weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall
consider the grievance of the Petitioner and dispose of the same by
passing a speaking and reasoned order within eight weeks thereafter,
keeping in view the judgments referred to hereinabove. The final
decision so taken by the Opposite party No.1 be communicated to the
petitioner within ten days thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
