Manoj Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Manoj Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application/representation, supported by necessary documents, within two weeks; the jurisdictional authorities to take a decision and inform the petitioner of the result within an outer limit of six weeks; all contentions kept open; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to RACP benefit after putting in the particular/requisite number of years of service under the extant policy. +1 more

Court's answer

Writ petition disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application to the concerned authorities, supported by necessary documents, within two weeks; upon such representation the jurisdictional authorities to take a decision and inform the petitioner of the result within an outer limit of six weeks.

Ratio / Principle

The Court endorsed as the correct position the learned A.G.A.'s submission (made with reference to Justice B.L. Hansaria's "Writ Jurisdiction") that no writ of Mandamus lies unless there is demand and rejection; on that basis mandamus as sought was not issued and the petition was disposed of with liberty to make a representation.

Key takeaways

All contentions of the parties kept open; the consideration of the representation is to be in the light of the coordinate Bench decision in Ashok Kumar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa (O.A. No.1668 of 2017, decided 09.10.2018, confirmed in W.P.(C) No.6698 of 2010 and further confirmed by the apex Court in SLP(C) No.15573 of 2020).ratio¶17
Opposite Party No.3 may solicit any information or documents from the petitioner required for due consideration of the representation, but no delay shall be brooked on that account.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service Law - RACP benefit - Grievance of non-granting of RACP benefit despite requisite years of service under extant policy - Held: no writ of Mandamus lies unless there is demand and rejection (learned A.G.A.'s submission endorsed by the Court with reference to Justice B.L. Hansaria's "Writ Jurisdiction"); writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application with supporting documents within two weeks; jurisdictional authorities to decide and communicate the result within an outer limit of six weeks; consideration to be in the light of the coordinate Bench decision in Ashok Kumar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa (O.A. No.1668 of 2017, decided 09.10.2018; confirmed in W.P.(C) No.6698 of 2010; further confirmed in SLP(C) No.15573 of 2020); all contentions kept open; Opposite Party No.3 free to call for information/documents but delay not to be brooked; no costs. (Orissa High Court, Cuttack; Dixit Krishna Shripad, J.; 13.10.2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.20082 of 2025

Manoj Kumar Panda

…. Petitioner

Mr. A.P. Mohanty, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties

Mr. U.C. Behura, ASC

CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

ORDER

13.10.2025

Order No.

The short grievance of the petitioner is as to non03. granting of RACP benefit after he has put in a particular number of years of service under the extant policy. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, that benefit ought to have been granted to his client and not giving him is unjustified.

2. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the O.Ps. submits that there cannot be a Mandamus, unless there is demand and rejection. That standard books of law, like the one by Justice B.L.Hansaria’s “Writ Jurisdiction”. This is correct position.

3. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application to the concerned authorities, supported by necessary documents within two weeks and if such a representation is made, decision shall be taken by

Page 1 of 1

the Jurisdictional Authorities and result thereof shall be informed to the petitioner within an outer limit of six weeks. In that connection, all contentions of the parties are kept open. The consideration shall be in the light of the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Mohapatra -vrs.- State of Orissa (O.A.No.1668 of 2017 disposed of vide judgment dated 09.10.2018 and confirmed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6698 of 2010 and further confirmed by the apex Court in SLP(C) No.15573 of 2020.

It is open to Opp. Party No.3 to solicit any information or document from the side of the petitioner, as are required for due consideration of the subject representation; however in that guise, delay shall not be brooked.

Now, no costs.

( Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

Prasant

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 14-Oct-2025 10:19:19

Page 2 of 2