Damodar Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Damodar Sahu 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 to the concerned authorities supported by necessary documents within two weeks; Jurisdictional Authorities to decide and communicate the result within an outer limit of six weeks; all contentions kept open; consideration in light of the Ashok Kumar Mohapatra decision; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, having put in the requisite number of years of service under the extant policy, was entitled to grant of RACP benefit. +1 more

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application to the concerned authorities, supported by necessary documents, within two weeks.

Ratio / Principle

Endorsing the A.G.A.'s submission as the correct position, supported by standard books of law such as Justice B.L. Hansaria's 'Writ Jurisdiction', there cannot be a Mandamus unless there is demand and rejection.

Key takeaways

On such representation, the Jurisdictional Authorities shall take the decision and inform the petitioner of the result within an outer limit of six weeks; all contentions of the parties stand kept open.ratio¶17
Consideration of the representation shall 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.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service Law – RACP benefit – Orissa High Court, W.P.(C) No.21124 of 2025 (Dixit Krishna Shripad, J., 13.10.2025). Petitioner Damodar Sahu's grievance was non-grant of RACP benefit despite his having put in a particular number of years of service under the extant policy. The Court endorsed the A.G.A.'s submission as the correct position (per standard works including Justice B.L. Hansaria's 'Writ Jurisdiction') that there cannot be a Mandamus unless there is demand and rejection. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application supported by necessary documents within two weeks; the Jurisdictional Authorities were directed to decide and intimate the result within an outer limit of six weeks, keeping all contentions open, and to consider the matter 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 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. Opposite Party No.3 was left free to seek information/documents but without brooking delay; no costs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.21124 of 2025

Damodar Sahu

…. 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 non01. 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