Disposed¶17

Gangadhar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC17 Sept 2025WP(C)/23744/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa HC, Cuttack; W.P.(C) 23744 of 2025; Gangadhar Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Others; Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad; 17.09.2025; writ petition disposed; mandamus sought for sanction of three increments 01/07/2023 to 01/07/2025 and other benefits; representation dated 14.02.2023 undecided; eight weeks' compliance time; decision on representation to be communicated; Opposite Parties may seek information/documents without delay; no costs; AGA S. B. Mohanty; advocate C. R. Pattnaik.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; Opposite Parties to take a decision on the representation dated 14.02.2023 and communicate it to the Petitioner within eight weeks; liberty to seek information/documents from the Petitioner without brooking delay; no costs. ¶17

Gangadhar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO.23744 OF 2025

¶2

Gangadhar Sahoo

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. C. R. Pattnaik, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Others

¶7

…. Opp.Parties Mr. S. B. Mohanty, AGA

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD ORDER

¶9

Order No. 05.

¶10

17.09.2025

¶11

The short grievance of the Petitioner is reflected in the prayer column as under:

¶12

“Under such circumstances it is prayed therefore that your lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this writ application call for records & after hearing the parties may be pleased to issue a writ/s, order/s, direction/s in the nature of mandamus directing the Opp. Parties to sanction increments from 01 /07 /2023 to till 01 /07 /2025 i.e. three increments & other benefits available to him under law, within a stipulated period as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper.”

¶13

Learned counsel for the Petitioner draws attention of the Court to his client’s representation dated 14.02.2023, wherein he has requested for sanctioning of the increments. He also points out that no decision having been taken on the same, aid of this Court is eminently warranted.

¶14

Learned AGA-Mr. Mohanty for the OPs very fairly submits that he would instruct his clients to look into the grievance of the Petitioner, as has been aired in the subject representation, in a time

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

bound way and in accordance with law, should all contentions be reserved. With this proposal counsel for the Petitioner is agreeable.

¶17

In the above circumstances, Writ Petition is disposed off. Time for compliance is eight weeks, which would include communicating the decision taken on the subject representation to the Petitioner.

¶18

It is open to the answering Opposite Parties to solicit any information or documents from the side of the Petitioner, as required for taking a decision on 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

Madhusmita

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK Designation: Asst-Register-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 17-Sep-2025 18:08:56

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Gangadhar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangadhar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binodini Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Ajay Kumar Giri Vs State of Odisha

Giri Gobardhan Forest Committee, Khurda Vs State of Odisha

Litun Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Asisa Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Mitali Sahoo Vs State of Odisha