Disposed

Soudamini Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Sept 2026WP(C)/28695/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition without expressing an opinion on merits, directing Opposite Party No. 4 to consider the petitioner's representation regarding regularization of services and pension benefits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Opposite Party No. 4 to consider the petitioner's representation regarding service regularization and pension benefits within three months.

Soudamini 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. 28695 of 2026 CNR No.ODHC010644572026

¶2

Soudamini Sahoo

¶3

..... Petitioner Mr. K.C. Rath, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶6

..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶9

10.09.2026

¶10

Order No. 01

¶11

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶12

On the oral prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, he is permitted to correct the description of Opp. Party No.4 as SP, Angul in place of SP, Malkangiri.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

“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;

¶16

(i) Why the action of the Opposite Parties in not regularizing the services of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case will not be declared as illegal; and

¶17

Page 1 of 2.

¶18

(ii) Why the Opposite Parties will not be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner within a stipulated time; and

¶19

(iii) Why the Opposite Parties will not be directed to sanction pension and other pensionary benefits as due and admissible under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 in favour of the petitioner on such regularization of his service within a stipulated time;

¶20

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

¶21

In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner state that highlighting his grievances, the Petitioner has made a representation to Opposite Party No.4 vide Annexure-8 and the same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time, to which learned Counsel for the State has no objection.

¶22

6. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ Petition directing Opposite Party No.4 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-8 in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶23

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORI SSA Date: 11-Sep-2026 11:10:39

¶26

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶27

Jyoti

¶28

Page 2 of 2.

Soudamini Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soudamini 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases