Gokul Charan Das Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Gokul Charan Das Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to make an appropriate application, supported by necessary documents, to the concerned authorities within two weeks; Jurisdictional Authorities to take a decision and inform the petitioner within an outer limit of six weeks; all contentions kept open; consideration directed in light of the coordinate Bench decision in Ashok Kumar Mohapatra -vrs. State of Orissa; no costs ordered.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of RACP/MACP benefit after rendering a particular number of years of service under the extant policy, and whether the non-grant of that benefit is justified.

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application, supported by necessary documents, to the concerned authorities within two weeks; if such a representation is made, the Jurisdictional Authorities shall take a decision and inform the petitioner of the result within an outer limit of six weeks.

Ratio / Principle

All contentions of the parties are kept open in connection with the consideration of the representation.

Key takeaways

Consideration of the representation 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, judgment dated 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 document from the petitioner required for due consideration of the representation, but in that guise delay shall not be brooked.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.20740 of 2025 (Gokul Charan Das v. State of Odisha & Others), High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad, Order dated 11.11.2025. Grievance: non-grant of RACP/MACP benefit to the petitioner despite requisite years of service under the extant policy; learned counsel asserted the benefit ought to have been granted, while the Additional Standing Counsel contended that a mandamus requires prior demand and rejection. Without adjudicating entitlement itself, the Judge disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit a documented application to the concerned authorities within two weeks; the Jurisdictional Authorities must thereafter decide and communicate the result within six weeks, with all contentions of the parties kept open and consideration to be in the light of the coordinate Bench decision in Ashok Kumar Mohapatra -vrs. State of Orissa (O.A.No.1668 of 2017, judgment dated 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). Opposite Party No.3 may solicit additional information or documents but delay is not to be brooked. No costs; web copy to be acted upon by all concerned.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.20740 of 2025

GOKUL CHARAN DAS …. Petitioner

Mr. A.K. Tripathy, Advocate

-Versus-

STATE OF ODISHA & OTHERS …. Opposite Parties

Mr. J.K. Khandayatray, ASC

CORAM:

JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

Order No. 01.

ORDER 11.11.2025

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

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.

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.

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

Page 1 of 2

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.

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

( 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: 12-Nov-2025 10:58:37

Page 2 of 2