Rabindra Kumar Dash Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rabindra Kumar Dash Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Extension of pension and other retiral benefits in favour of the Petitioner on the pattern of similar matters (Hemanta Kumar Chhotray line), subject to the outcome of Writ Appeal No.197 of 2024, with compliance directed within eight (8) weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, whose case is substantially similar to Hemanta Kumar Chhotray v. State of Orissa and others (2024 (1) OLR 709), should be extended pension and other retiral benefits on account of his retirement in terms of the Odisha Aided Educational Institution Employees Retirement Benefit Rule, 1981, while the learned Single Judge judgment in that matter is pending challenge in Writ Appeal No.197 of 2024 without any interim stay.

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the writ petition is disposed of with the benefits to be extended as in similar matters, subject to the outcome of Writ Appeal No.197 of 2024, and compliance is directed within eight (8) weeks.

Ratio / Principle

Because there is no interim order staying the learned Single Judge judgment, and this Court has in a number of similar matters already ordered extension of the said benefits subject to the outcome of the Writ Appeal, the same course is adopted here, there being no other legal impediment indicated.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Pension/retiral benefits — Odisha Aided Educational Institution Employees Retirement Benefit Rule, 1981 — Writ petitioner, a retiree claiming parity with litigants in Hemanta Kumar Chhotray v. State of Orissa and others, 2024 (1) OLR 709 (which also cites Sarat Chandra Parida, (2015) (II) ILR-CTC 94), whose subject matter was held substantially similar — learned Single Judge judgment in that line of cases under challenge in Writ Appeal No.197 of 2024 with no interim stay — Court, following its practice in similar matters, disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on merits, directing extension of the benefits subject to the outcome of the Writ Appeal, compliance within eight (8) weeks. (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J., order dated 21.05.2026)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.15339 of 2026

Rabindra Kumar Dash

..... Petitioner

Represented by Adv. - Sangram Jena

-versus-

State of Odisha & Ors.

..... Opposite Parties

Represented by Adv. - Mr. A.Mohanty, A.S.C.

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

21.05.2026

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

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

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

“It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to:-

i) Admit the writ application.

ii) Call for the records.

iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ/writs, direction/directions, directing the StateOpposite parties to extend the benefit of pension and other retiral benefits in favour of the present petitioner on account of his retirement in terms of the Odisha Aided Educational Institution Employees Retirement Benefit Rule, 1981, keeping in view the ratio decided in the case of Sarat Chandra Parida-vrs.-State of Odisha & Ors. reported in (2015) (II) ILR-CTC page-94 so also the subsequent common judgment passed in the case of

Page 1 of 2.

Hemant Kumar Chhotaray -vrs.-State of Odisha & Ors. reported in 2024(I)OLR-709 within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

iv) And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper for the ends of justice.”

The subject matter of this petition is substantially similar to the one in Hemanta Kumar Chhotray v. State of Orissa and others , 2024 (1) OLR 709 and therefore, counsel for the Petitioner submits that the benefit given to litigants in the subject case should be extended his client as well.

Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the StateOpposite Parties submits that the said matter is subjudice in Writ Appeal No.197 of 2024. However, on being asked, he tells that there is no interim order staying the judgment of the learned Single Judge. This Court in a number of similar matters has already ordered extension of the said benefits subject to outcome of the Writ Appeal and therefore, the same course needs to be adopted here also, if there are no other legal impediments.

Ordered accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of subject to outcome of the writ appeal mentioned above. Compliance within eight(8) weeks.

Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned.

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge

Rubi

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 24-May-2026 15:41:04

Page 2 of 2.