Shantilata Patra Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shantilata Patra Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to make an appropriate application/representation to the concerned authorities, supported by necessary documents, within two weeks; upon such representation, the Jurisdictional Authorities to take a decision and inform the petitioner within an outer limit of six weeks; Opp. Party No.3 may solicit any information/documents required for due consideration, without brooking delay; all contentions of the parties kept open; no costs imposed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of RACP/MACP benefit after putting in the requisite number of years of service under the extant policy. +1 more

Court's answer

While disposing of the petition, the Court directed that the jurisdictional authorities' consideration of the petitioner's claim shall be made 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 in SLP(C) No.15573 of 2020).

Ratio / Principle

Endorsing the position urged by the learned A.G.A. (and echoed by standard writings such as Justice B.L. Hansaria's 'Writ Jurisdiction'), this Court affirmed that a Mandamus cannot issue unless there is demand and rejection.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court, Cuttack — WP(C) No.29402 of 2025 (order dated 29.10.2025, Dixit Krishna Shripad, J.). Petitioner Shantilata Patra's grievance was non-grant of RACP/MACP benefit despite the requisite years of service under the extant policy. Endorsing the learned A.G.A.'s submission, the Court affirmed that a Mandamus cannot issue unless there is demand and rejection, and disposed of the writ petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to lodge a documented representation within two weeks; the jurisdictional authorities must then decide and communicate the result within an outer limit of six weeks, may seek additional information/documents without delay, with all contentions kept open and no costs. Future consideration is expressly directed to follow 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 in SLP(C) No.15573 of 2020).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.29402 of 2025

SHANTILATA PATRA

…. Petitioner

Represented by Adv.Mr. D. Behera, Adv.

-versus-

STATE OF ODISHA & …. ORS.

Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.Mr. D. Lenka, AGA

CORAM:

JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

ORDER

29.10.2025

Order No.

01.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The short grievance of the petitioner is as to non-granting of RACP/MACP benefit after she 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 her is unjustified.

Learned A.G.A. 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. This is correct position.

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 weeks. In that connection, all

Page 1 of 2

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: 30-Oct-2025 10:25:59

Page 2 of 2