Nakula Charan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:-

¶18

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:i) Admit the writ application ;

¶19

ii) Call for the records ;

¶20

iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 0pp. Parties to grant RACP

¶21

benefits to the petitioner's as per the Finance Department Resolution dated 06.02.2013 read with the Judgment pronounced in O.A No-1668/2017 disposed on 09.10.2018, W.P.( C)-6698/2020 disposed on 13.03.2020,and SLP(C) no-

¶22

Page 1 of 3.

¶23

15573/2020 disposed on 04.01.2021.by computing the entire period of service rendered during the pre-taken over period w.e.f. receiving of grant.

¶24

iv) And further necessary declaration be made in declaring that the stipulation made Govt. letter 14.07.2022 that the said order will not be precedent to others Is bad in law. v) And/or pass such other order/orders, direction/ directions as this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper for the ends of Justice.

¶25

And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶26

Learned counsel for both the parties agreed that the issue involved in this writ petition is analogues to one involved in O.A. No. 1668 of 2017 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa) , which was disposed of by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal vide judgment dated 09.10.2018 and confirmed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6698 of 2020 and further confirmed by the apex Court in SLP(C) No.15573 of 2020.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State submitted that although he has no instruction however, in the event, the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Parties to cause redressal of his grievance in terms of the judgment referred to hereinabove, he shall have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Parties to consider the Petitioner’s case in accordance with law and dispose of the same within a stipulated period of time.

¶28

Having regard to the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, further taking into consideration, the nature of grievance involved in the present writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the

¶29

Page 2 of 3.

¶30

Petitioner, if the same has not been considered and disposed of in the meantime, strictly in accordance with law and by keeping in view the dictum in Ashok Kumar Mohapatra’s case (supra) and, dispose of the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks’ from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order.

¶31

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Application stands disposed of.

¶32

Judge

¶33

Sisir

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 22-Jan-2026 16:59:33

¶36

Page 3 of 3.

Nakula Charan Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nakula Charan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parbati Randhari Vs State of Orissa

Niranjan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa

Shubhendu Shekhar Das Vs State of Odisha

Binapani Pattanaik Vs State of Orissa

Manoj Manjari Jema Vs State of Odisha

Bharati Jena Vs State of Odisha