Disposed¶23

Subash Chandra Biswal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Jul 2026WP(C)/19937/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha HC, W.P.(C) 19937/2026, disposed 03.07.2026, Judge Biraja Prasanna Satapathy; direction to Opposite Party No.4 to decide pending representation (Annexure-4) within 3 months per law and intimate result; subject: grant of RACP and one increment, parity with Sumanta Kumar Bhoi and co-joiners at Jajpur, Balasore, Bhadkar, Cuttack, Bhubaneswar; merits not opined upon; no statute or precedent cited; petitioner's counsel M.R. Padhi; State counsel S.P. Das, ASC.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to Opposite Party No.4 to take a decision on the petitioner's representation (Annexure-4) in accordance with law, within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, and to communicate the result of such exercise to the Petitioner; no relief granted on the RACP/increment claim itself, merits left open.

Subash Chandra Biswal Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of RACP and one increment, being similarly situated to Sumanta Kumar Bhoi and other employees who joined in different districts (Jajpur, Balasore, Bhadkar, Cuttack and Bhubaneswar), for which the writ application sought a Certiorari/Mandamus direction to the opposite parties. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's entitlement claim; the merits were left open for decision by Opposite Party No.4.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court directed Opposite Party No.4 to take a decision on the petitioner's representation in accordance with law, within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, and to communicate the result of such exercise to the Petitioner.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.), Order dated 03.07.2026 in W.P.(C) No.19937 of 2026, Subash Chandra Biswal v. State of Odisha & Others — The writ petition sought a Certiorari/Mandamus direction for grant of RACP and one increment to the petitioner, claimed on parity with similarly situated employees including Sumanta Kumar Bhoi who had joined in Jajpur, Balasore, Bhadkar, Cuttack and Bhubaneswar. Noting that the petitioner's representation (Annexure-4) had elicited no decision, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court disposed of the petition by directing Opposite Party No.4 to take a decision on the representation in accordance with law within three (3) months from production of certified copy of the order and to communicate the result to the Petitioner.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.19937 of 2026

¶3

Subash Chandra Biswal

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. M.R. Padhi, Adv.

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC

¶9

COROM:

¶10

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

03.07.2026

Order No

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

¶15

2. Heard learned counsel for Petitioner and learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.

¶16

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶17

“The petitioner, therefore, prays that Your Lordship's may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, call for the records and after hearing the parties and issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari/Mandamus or any other or further writ/writs), direction/directions directing the opp parties to grant RACP and one increment in favor of the petitioner basis on similar situated in person Sumanta kumar Bhoi and who have joined with the petitioner in different districts i.e Jajpur, Balasore, Bhadkar, Cuttack and Bhubaneswar for the interest of justice.

¶18

And pass any other order(s), direction (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper.

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

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

¶21

4 . Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that through highlighting his grievances, the Petitioner has filed a representation vide Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition, but till date nothing has been done in the matter. In such background, he prays that a direction be issued to Opposite Party No.4 to take a decision on the above noted petition within a specific time period.

¶22

5. Considering the submissions made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court directs Opposite Party No.4 to take a decision on the above noted representation in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and communicate the result of such exercise to the Petitioner.

¶23

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶24

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶25

Sipra

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cut tack Date: 06-Jul-2026 18:22:48

¶28

Page 2 of 2