Disposed

Manoranjan Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Sept 2026WP(C)/28713/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petition for MACP financial upgradation for 20 years of service, disposed of the Writ Petition directing Opposite Party No.4 to consider the petitioner's representation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Opposite Party No.4 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-8 in accordance with law within three months.

Manoranjan Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 28713 of 2026 CNR No.ODHC010634372026

¶2

Manoranjan Nayak

¶3

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶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 Petitioner, 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 petitioner 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.

Manoranjan Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoranjan Nayak 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