Disposed

Prakash Chandra Maharana v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Sept 2026WP(C)/28701/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition filed under Article 226 seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus for MACP financial upgradation and consequential benefits. Court directed Opposite Party to consider the representation within three months and disposed of the writ petition without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed Opposite Party No.4 to consider the petitioner's representation within 3 months.

Prakash Chandra Maharana Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 28701 of 2026 CNR No.ODHC010634342026

¶2

Prakash Chandra Maharana

¶3

..... Petitioner Mr. K.C. Ratha, Advocate

¶4

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

¶5

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶8

10.09.2026

¶9

Order No. 01

¶10

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

“The Petitioners, therefore, most humbly prays to issue Notice to the Opposite Parties to furnish suitable Show Cause and in absence of any such suitable Show Cause, this Hon'ble Court further be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other suitable Writ/Writs directing the Opposite Parties to allow MACP of financial upgradation for the completion of 20 years of service. Or representation may be disposed of within stipulated period.

¶14

And the Petitioners may kindly be allowed to get all Service Consequential and Financial benefits.

¶15

And any other Order/Orders direction/directions may be passed.

¶16

Page 1 of 2.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

5. 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.

¶20

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶21

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶22

Jyoti

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

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

¶25

Page 2 of 2.

Prakash Chandra Maharana v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Chandra Maharana 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