Disposed

Gadadhar Naik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC21 May 2026WP(C)/15927/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition regarding the non-granting of RACP/MACP benefits. The court held that mandamus requires demand and rejection. It directed the petitioner to make a representation within two weeks, with a decision to be rendered within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file representation within two weeks; authorities to decide within six weeks.

Gadadhar Naik Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.15927 of 2026

Gadadhar Naik

.....

Petitioner

Represented by Adv. - Tushar Kanta Nayak

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶8

..... Opposite Parties

¶9

Represented by Adv. - Mr. C.M.Singh, A.S.C.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

Order No.

ORDER

21.05.2026

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

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

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

¶18

Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties submits that there cannot be a Mandamus, unless there is demand and rejection. That standard books of law, like the one by Justice B.L. Hansaria’s “Writ Jurisdiction”. This is correct position.

¶19

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate

¶20

Page 1 of 2.

¶21

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 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 2020 and further confirmed by the apex Court in SLP(C) No.15573 of 2020.

¶22

It is open to Opp. Party No.2 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.

¶23

Now, no costs.

¶24

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

¶25

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge

¶26

Rubi

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Page 2 of 2.

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 24-May-2026 15:41:06

Gadadhar Naik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gadadhar Naik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khaga @ Khagendra Malik Vs State of Odisha

Kandua @ Tusar Malik Vs State of Odisha

Bhabani Shankar Patra Vs State of Odisha

Srandhanjali Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Rabindra Kumar Dash Vs State of Odisha

Managing Committee of Karapada High School Vs State of Odisha