Manorama Dash v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC16 Jan 2026WP(C)/59/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposed at admission; direction to Opposite Party No.2 to decide pending representation (Annexure-9, dated 08.01.2025) within eight weeks by a speaking and reasoned order and communicate the decision within two weeks thereafter; prayer for U.G.C. scale of pay for deceased husband Harekrishna Dash (died 10.07.1995) and differential family pension from 11.07.1995; petitioner Smt. Manorama Dash; State counsel raised no objection; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra; 16.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Opposite Party No.2 to consider the Petitioner's representation under Annexure-9 within eight weeks, by passing a speaking and reasoned order, and to communicate the decision to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter. ¶¶26

Manorama Dash Vs State of Orissa — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the Opposite Parties should provide the U.G.C. scale of pay to the Petitioner's deceased husband Harekrishna Dash from the date of his entitlement till his death on 10.07.1995 and the differential family pension from 11.07.1995, and whether the pending representation (Annexure-9, dated 08.01.2025) should be considered and decided.

¶¶19

Court's answer

The writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission, with a direction to Opposite Party No.2 to consider the Petitioner's representation under Annexure-9 within eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶¶23

Ratio / Principle

Opposite Party No.2 shall dispose of the representation by passing a speaking and reasoned order.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

The decision taken by Opposite Party No.2 shall be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, WP(C) No.59 of 2026, decided on 16.01.2026 by Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J. — Smt. Manorama Dash, widow of Harekrishna Dash (who died on 10.07.1995), sought directions for release of the U.G.C. scale of pay due to her deceased husband from the date of his entitlement till his death, together with differential family pension from 11.07.1995, alleging inaction by the Opposite Parties notwithstanding her detailed representation dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure-9) before Opposite Party No.2. Counsel for the State expressed no objection to the pending representation being considered. The Court disposed of the writ application at the admission stage, directing Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation within eight weeks of production of the certified copy of the order, to dispose of it by a speaking and reasoned order, and to communicate the decision to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.59 of 2026

¶2

Smt. Manorama Dash

¶3

.....

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Represented by Adv. - Debendranath Misra, Mr. Samarendra Swain

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State Of Orissa and another ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S. Behera, AGA

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

16.01.2026

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶15

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶16

“The petitioner, therefore, pray that this Hon'ble Court would graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opp. parties to show cause as to why the Petitioner's husband shall not be provided with the scale of pay as is admissible under the University Grant Commission guidelines from the date of his entitlement.

¶17

If the opp. parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the said Rule be made

¶18

Page 1 of 3.

¶19

absolute with directions to the Opposite parties to allow U.G.C Scale of Pay in favor of her deceased husband Harekrishna Dash from the date of his entitlement till his death on 10.07.1995 and the differential family pension from 11.07.1995 till the date of actual payment to the petitioner within a stipulated period.

¶20

And/or pass such other order/orders, issue such other writ/writs this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in order to provide complete relief to the petitioner.”

¶21

It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that being aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite Parties in releasing the U.G.C. Scale of Pay from the date of entitlement of the Petitioner and the revise family pension as well as other benefits, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. He further contended that the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation on 08.01.2025 at Annexure-9, however, no final decision has been taken on such representation.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State submits that he has no objection if the representation of the Petitioner is considered by the Opposite Party No.2, which is stated to be pending, in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶23

Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, the writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-9 within a period of eight weeks from

¶24

Page 2 of 3.

¶25

the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-9 by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.2 be also communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

¶26

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶27

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶28

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

¶29

Judge

¶30

S.K. Rout

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Page 3 of 3. Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 20-Jan-2026 10:50:05

Manorama Dash v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manorama Dash v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Simanchala Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Sanatan Patanaik Vs State of Orissa

Arun Kumar Naik Vs State of Odisha

Parbati Randhari Vs State of Orissa

Niranjan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa

Shubhendu Shekhar Das Vs State of Odisha