Petitioner challenged the non-grant of RACP benefit despite completed service. The Court held that Mandamus requires prior demand and rejection, ordered the petition dismissed, and granted liberty to file an application to authorities.
Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to make representation to authorities within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.20103 of 2025
Ramachandra Bastia
…. Petitioner
Mr. P. Panda, 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
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the non-grant of RACP benefit without prior demand and rejection justifies the issuance of a writ of Mandamus.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ashok Kumar Mohapatra -vrs.- State of OrissaReferred¶17
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 2
Ramachandra Bastia
State of Odisha
Dixit Krishna Shripad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
