Disposed¶9

Brahmananda Sethi v. State

Orissa HC6 Jul 2026WP(C)/16328/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: VRS scheme balance dues; provident fund (PF) deposit; Opposite Party No.5; writ of mandamus; batch of Writ Petitions of 2009; W.P.(C) No.7906 of 2021; order dtd.19.09.2025; relief 'no more entertainable'; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.; advocates A.K. Jena (petitioner), C.K. Pradhan AGA (State), S. Mallik and L.K. Mohanty (O.P.3), S.S. Mohanty (O.P.5); all Writ Petitions disposed of, no direction issued.

What did the court decide?

None; the Court declined to issue the prayed-for directions and all the Writ Petitions were disposed of accordingly. ¶9

Brahmananda Sethi Vs State — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) Nos.13599, 13596, 13597, 13598, 13608, 13610, 13611, 13612, 16326, 16327, 16328, 16329, 16330, 16331, 16332, 16333, 16334 & 16336 of 2009

¶3

Bamadeba Sethy

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. A.K. Jena, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA Mr. S. Mallik, Adv. for O.P.3 Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Adv. for O.P.5 Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Adv. for O.P.3 in some of the cases

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No.

06.07.2026

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

¶14

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

¶15

3. The present batch of Writ Petitions have been filed i nter alia with similar prayer, which reads as follows:-

¶16

“It is therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon the Opp.parties to show cause as to why:-

¶17

i) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/ writs shall not be issued directing the Opp.parties to pay his balance dues under VRS scheme and also direct the Opp.parties to deposit the provident fund dues of the petitioner with the Opp.party No.5 immediately.

¶18

ii) If the Opp.parties fail to show cause or so insufficient cause to make the rule absolute.

¶19

(iii) May pass such order orders/ as deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶20

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

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that even though Petitioners are otherwise eligible to get the benefit as prayed for, but the same is yet to be extended. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions have been filed with the prayer as indicated hereinabove.

¶23

5. Mr. S. Mallik and Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.3 in the batch of Writ Petitions and Mr. S.S. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.5 in all the Writ Petitions contended that similar claim made in the present batch of Writ Petitions was also the issue involved in W.P.(C) No.7906 of 2021. This Court vide order dtd.19.09.2025 declined to allow similar claim. Copy of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.7906 of 2021 so produced in Court be kept in record.

¶24

6. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party Nos.3 and 5 accordingly contended that since similar claim has not been allowed by this Court while disposing W.P.(C) No.7906 of 2021, the present batch of Writ Petitions with the prayer as made is no more entertainable.

¶25

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the nature of order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7906 of 2021 on 19.09.2025, it is the view of this Court that the relief claimed in the batch of Writ Petitions is no more entertainable.

¶26

8. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to issue any such direction as prayed for.

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

// 3 //

¶29

9. All the Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶30

10. Photocopy of the order be placed in other connected Writ Petitions.

¶31

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge