Disposed¶25

Pravabati Routray v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC21 Jan 2026WP(C)/1963/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Notional periodical annual increment; retirement on 28.02.2022 one day before increment date 01.03.2022; entry into service 12.03.1986; differential financial benefits; writ of mandamus; fresh representation to Opposite Party No.3 within three weeks; lawful decision within three months; disposed without adjudication of entitlement; Orissa High Court at Cuttack; Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra; 21.01.2026; WP(C) No.1963 of 2026; petitioner Pravabati Routray; State of Orissa.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before Opposite Party No.3 within three weeks with relevant documents and citations; Opposite Party No.3 directed to take a lawful decision on it within three months of receipt and to communicate the decision to the petitioner. ¶25

Pravabati Routray Vs State of Orissa — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to drawal and disbursement of differential financial benefits through extension of one notional periodical annual increment w.e.f. 01.03.2022, having entered Government service on 12.03.1986 and retired w.e.f. 28.02.2022 without receiving the normal annual periodical increment on 01.03.2022.

¶19

Court's answer

Taking into account the claim raised in the writ petition, liberty was granted to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before Opposite Party No.3, enclosing all relevant documents and citations in support of her claim, within a period of three (3) weeks.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

If such representation is filed within the stipulated time, Opposite Party No.3 shall take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such representation, and the order so passed shall be communicated to the petitioner.

¶24

Key takeaways

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition was disposed of; the entitlement claim itself was not adjudicated by this order.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court at Cuttack (single judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra), WP(C) No.1963 of 2026, order dated 21.01.2026: petitioner Pravabati Routray sought a writ of mandamus for drawal and disbursement of differential financial benefits by extension of one notional periodical annual increment w.e.f. 01.03.2022, having entered Government service on 12.03.1986 and retired w.e.f. 28.02.2022 without the normal annual periodical increment due on 01.03.2022. The court did not adjudicate the entitlement claim on its merits; it granted liberty to file a fresh representation before Opposite Party No.3 with all relevant documents and citations within three (3) weeks, and observed that Opposite Party No.3 shall take a lawful decision thereon within three (3) months of receipt and communicate the order to the petitioner. With these observation and direction, the writ petition was disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.1963 of 2026

¶2

Pravabati Routray

¶3

.....

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Represented by Adv. – Mr. Ajaya Kumar Tripathy

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Orissa and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. –

¶8

Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, ASC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

21.01.2026

Order No.

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

¶15

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶16

Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶17

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to;-

¶18

i) Admit the writ application; ii) Call for the records;

¶19

iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing Opp. Parties, more particularly to the Opp. Party No.3 for drawal and disbursement of differential financial benefits at an early date in favour of the petitioner by extending one notional periodical annual increment w.e.f. 01.03.2022 as the petitioner entered into Govt. Service on 12.03.1986

¶20

Page 1 of 1.

¶21

and retired from Govt. Service w.e.f. 28.02.2022 without getting the normal annual periodical increment on 01.03.2022.

¶22

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

¶23

However, taking into account the claim raised in the present Writ Petition, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to make a fresh representation before Opp. Party No.3 by enclosing all the relevant documents and citations in support of her claim, if any, within a period of three (3) weeks hence.

¶24

It is observed that if such representation is filed within the aforesaid time period, Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such representation. The order so passed by Opp. Party No.3 be communicated to the Petitioner.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶26

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)

¶27

Judge

¶28

Debasis

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 28-Jan-2026 10:25:03

¶31

Page 2 of 2.

Pravabati Routray v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravabati Routray v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biswanath Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Benugopal Behera Vs State of Odisha

Satyananda Barik Vs Naguni Barik

Shahanawaz Ahmed Vs Nazimun Nesha

Jayasen Majhi Vs State of Orissa

Dinamani Behera Vs State of Odisha