Quashed

Mahendra Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Sept 2026WP(C)/19288/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa quashed an order rejecting a pension claim. Relying on its own judgment in Radhashyam Mohanta and a subsequent order, the court directed the respondent to grant regular pension and related benefits with interest to the petitioner within three months.

What did the court decide?

Regular pension, deficit period, gratuity with interest, and arrear pension to be granted within three months.

Mahendra Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.19288 of 2025 CNR No. ODHC010471912025

¶2

Mahendra Sahoo

¶3

…. Petitioners Mr. S. Roy, Adv.

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Orissa and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. C. K. Pradhan, AGA

¶6

COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

09.09.2026

Order No

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶11

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶12

3 . The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶13

“ It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue Rule "NISI" to the Opp. Parties to show cause as to;

¶14

(i) Why the impugned order dated 21.06.2025 passed by Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-13 in the facts and circumstances of the case will not be declared as illegal and liable to be set aside/quashed; and

¶15

(ii) Why the Opposite Parties will not be directed to grant regular pension as due and admissible in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. July, 2023 after adding the deficit period from the NMR establishment and thereby enabling the

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

petitioner for pension as provided under OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 within a stipulated time; and

¶18

(iii) Why the Opposite Parties will not be directed to sanction the gratuity as due and admissible in favour of the petitioner along with interest as provided under OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 within a stipulated time;

¶19

and

¶20

(iv) Why the Opposite Parties will not be directed to sanction and disburse the arrear pension as due and admissible on such sanction of regular pension within a stipulated time;

¶21

and

¶22

And if the Opposite Parties do not show cause, then the Rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ/writs and any other order as deem fit be passed;

¶23

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

¶24

It is contended that even though Petitioner continued under the Opp. Parties initially as an NMR and subsequently in the Work Charged Establishment and thereafter in the regular establishment till his superannuation on 30.06.2023, but claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.21.06.2025 under Annexure13. It is contended that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected, is no more sustainable in view of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Radhashyam Mohanta (W.P.(C) No. 12377 of 2009) upheld by this Court in the Writ Petition as well as by the Apex Court. Not only that after such dismissal of the SLP, Radhashyam Mohanta -

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

// 3 //

¶27

Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 12377 of 2009 has got the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits.

¶28

4.1. It is also contended that following the decision in the case of Radhashyam Mohanta , in the case of Prasanna Kumar Das vs. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No. 9896 of 2026), this Court in its judgment dtd.19.05.2026 has held that person similarly situated are eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits. It is accordingly contended that in view of the decision in the case of Radhashyam Mohanta , with extension of the benefit in his favour, the ground on which Petitioner’s claim was rejected vide the impugned order, is no more sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court.

¶29

Learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand made his submission contending inter alia that since Petitioner’s qualifying service in the regular establishment is less than 10 years, which is the minimum qualifying service required to get the benefit of minimum pension, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order.

¶30

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submission made and since it is not disputed that Petitioner continued as an NMR and thereafter in the work charged establishment and lastly in the regular establishment all through till his retirement on 30.06.2023, this Court is of the view that claim of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the order passed in the case of Radhashyam Mohanta so cited ( supra ) and the recent judgment passed by this Court on 19.05.2026 in W.P.(C) No. 9896 of 2026.

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

// 4 //

¶33

6.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while quashing the impugned order dtd.21.06.2025 under Annexure-13, directs Opp. Parties to extend the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits in favour of the Petitioner in the light of the benefit extended in favour of Radhashyam Mohanta . This Court directs the Opp. Parties to complete the entire exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶34

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶35

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶36

Sangita/Utkalika

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Sep-2026 18:16:15

¶39

Page 4 of 4

Mahendra Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Sahoo 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases