Narayan Padhan Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing for the StateOpposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶15

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶16

“It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble court may

¶17

graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, issue rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties by issuing a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/writs calling upon the Opposite Parties to show-cause or show insufficient cause as to why they shall not be directed to allow the petitioner to avail the benefit or ORSP Rules 1998 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 instead of 01.07.2006 and ORSP Rules 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 instead of 08.01.2013 along

¶18

Page 1 of 4.

¶19

with differential arrears, within a stipulated time.

¶20

In the event of the Opposite Parties fail to file showcause or show insufficient cause said rule be made absolute and issued a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/writs directing the opposite party No-3 to release the Arrear Dues release w.e.f ORSP Rules 1998 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 instead of 01.07.2006 and ORSP Rules 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 instead of 08.01.2013, within a stipulated time.

¶21

And further be pleased to pass any order/orders direction/directions as deem fit and proper.”

¶22

It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that being aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite Parties in not extending the benefit under the ORSP Rules, 1998 with effect from 1.1.1996 and ORSP Rules, 2008 with effect from 1.1.2006, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner contended before this court that the issue involved in the present writ application has already been adjudicated by this court in Prabira Kumar Biswal & Ors. V. State of Orissa & Ors. in OJC No.10096 of 2001 disposed of on 16.9.2010 which was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex court in SLP(C) No.13657 of 2012 and SLP(CC) No.4591 of 2012. He further contended that by following the judgment in Prabira Kumar Biswal ’s case ( supra ), another matter was disposed of in W.P.(C) No.13882 of 2015 vide order dated 24.03.2021 thereby directing the opposite parties to extend the benefit to the Petitioner as is due and admissible in the light of the judgment in Prabira Kumar Biswal ’s case ( supra ). The order dated 24. 03.2021 has been upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court in

¶23

Page 2 of 4.

¶24

W.A No.339 of 2025 disposed of on 13.01.2026.

¶25

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that ventilating his grievance, he has already approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation dated 23.10.2024 at Annexure-4 to the writ application, however, no final decision has been taken on such representation. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Party No.1, the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing the present writ application.

¶26

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that though he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, taking into consideration the fact that the issue involved in the present writ application has already been settled finally by virtue of the judgment of this court in Prabira Kumar Biswal ’s case ( supra ), he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner at Annexure-4 in the light of the judgment in Prabira Kumar Biswal ’s case ( supra ) within a stipulated period of time.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts, further taking note of the fact that the grievance of the Petitioner is still pending before the Opposite Party No.1 for consideration, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ application with a direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23.10.2024 at Annexure-4 by taking into consideration the judgment in Prabira Kumar Biswal ’s case ( supra ) as well as the other judgments which have been referred to hereinabove and the representation of the

¶28

Page 3 of 4.

¶29

Anil

¶30

Petitioner be disposed of by passing a speaking and a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.

¶31

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶32

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶33

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Page 4 of 4.

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Apr-2026 19:19:24

Narayan Padhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Padhan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratnamayee Behera Vs State of Odisha

Biswajit Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Dambarudhar Panda Vs State of Odisha

Bansidhar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Rangalata Behera Vs State of Odisha

Pravakar Ballav Goswami Vs State of Odisha