Disposed

Prakash Mahakud v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Sept 2026WP(C)/28999/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa granted liberty to the petitioner to submit representations for the continuance of GPF subscription under the Old O.C.S. (Pension) Rules 1992, directing the respondent to decide within three months. The writ petition was disposed of without granting final relief.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file representation; respondent to decide on representation within three months.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.28999 of 2026 CNR No.ODHC010665842026

Prakash Mahakud

…. Petitioner

Mr. K.C Sahu, Adv.

-versus-

State of Odisha and Opp. Parties Others Mr. S.P Das, ASC

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶8

Order ORDER

¶9

10.09.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid

¶10

¶11

Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶12

2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶13

3 . Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer:-

¶14

“It is therefore prayed that the- Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the writ petition by directing the 0pp. Parties for continuance of GPF subscription in the GPF account no. MJO 54645 of the petitioner by passing an order for governing the services of the Petitioner under the Old O.C.S. (Pension) Rules 1992 and existing GPF (O) Rules with all consequential service benefits by taking into account the similar order passed by learned OAT in the ease of "Aswini Kumar Panda - Vs. State of Odisha" as per Annexure-5 being confirmed by this Hon'ble Court under Annexure-6 so also Hon'ble Supreme Court under Annexure-7(Series) being implemented under Annexure-8 as well as taking into account the order of this Hon'ble Court under Annexure-9 with in a time bound period for the interest of justice.

¶15

And may pass any other Writ(s), Direction(s), Order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper;

¶16

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

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

4. However, taking into account the claim raised in the present Writ Petition, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to make a detailed representation before Opp. Party No.2 by enclosing all the relevant documents and citations in support of his claim, if any, within a period of three (3) weeks hence.

¶19

5. It is observed that if such a representation is filed within the aforesaid period, Opp. Party No.2 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 the Opp. Party No.2 be communicated to the petitioner.

¶20

6. Since, it is contended that similar claim after being allowed by the tribunal, confirmed by this Court and by the Apex Court vide orders available under Annexures-5 to 7(series) has been implemented vide order at Annexure-8, relevancy and effects of the orders available under Annexures5 to 7(series) and so also the implementation made vide order under Annexure-8 be taken into consideration, if it is applicable to the Petitioner claim. Petitioner is directed to provide copies of the orders passed under Annexures-5 to 7(series) and so also the order implementing the same under Annexure-8, before O.P. No.2 compliance

¶21

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

¶22

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

¶23

Judge

¶24

Nitu Prava

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: NITU PRAVA PRUSTY Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2026 16:13:09

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Prakash Mahakud v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Mahakud 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