Disposed

Pravat Kumar Mandal v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC11 Nov 2025WP(C)/20726/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought MACP/RACP benefit denied despite long service. Court noted mandamus requires demand and rejection, disposed of the petition directing petitioner to make a representation within two weeks, with authorities to decide within six weeks, considering a coordinate Bench decision.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioner to submit representation within two weeks; authorities to decide and inform result within six weeks, all contentions kept open.

Pravat Kumar Mandal Vs State of Orissa — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.20726 of 2025

¶3

PRAVAT KUMAR MANDAL …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. A.K. Tripathy, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

STATE OF ODISHA & OTHERS …. Opposite Parties

¶7

Mr. J.K. Khandayatray, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

¶10

Order No. 01.

¶11

ORDER 11.11.2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶13

The short grievance of the petitioner is as to non-granting of RACP/MACP 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.

¶14

Learned ASC appearing for the O.Ps. submits that there cannot be a Mandamus, unless there is demand and rejection. The Standard Books of law, like the one by Justice B.L. Hansaria’s “Writ Jurisdiction”, echo this.

¶15

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed off 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 the Jurisdictional Authorities and result thereof shall be informed to the petitioner within an outer limit of six

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Now, no costs.

¶20

Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶21

( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge

¶22

Prasant

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 12-Nov-2025 10:58:37

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Pravat Kumar Mandal v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravat Kumar Mandal v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Beenapani Tripathy Vs State of Odisha

Gajendra Rout Vs State of Odisha

Sujata Mahapatra Vs State of Odisha

Gokul Charan Das Vs State of Odisha

Dibya Sundar Das Vs State of Odisha

Paramananda Pradhan Vs State of Odisha