Disposed¶26

Nirakar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC5 Mar 2026WP(C)/6570/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pension; pensionary benefits; retirement benefits; Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981; Rule 3; writ of mandamus; aided educational institution employees; benefits extended subject to outcome of Writ Appeal No.197 of 2024; no interim order staying Single Judge judgment; Hemanta Kumar Chhotray 2024 (1) OLR 709; Sarat Chandra Parida 2015(II) ILRCUT-94; SLP CC 761 of 2016; compliance within eight weeks; disposed without expressing opinion on merits; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; single judge; hybrid mode.

What did the court decide?

Sanction and release of pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner directed on the Court's established course in similar matters, subject to the outcome of Writ Appeal No.197 of 2024, with compliance to be effected within eight (8) weeks. ¶26

Nirakar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 to sanction and release the petitioner's pension and pensionary benefits w.e.f. 01.02.2026 in terms of Rule-3 of the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981, consistent with Sarat Chandra Parida and Hemanta Kumar Chhotray.

¶19

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of subject to the outcome of Writ Appeal No.197 of 2024, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Since this Court has in a number of similar matters already ordered extension of the said benefits subject to the outcome of the Writ Appeal, and there is no interim order staying the Single Judge judgment, the same course is adopted here, there being no other legal impediment indicated.

¶25

Key takeaways

Compliance with the order is directed within eight (8) weeks.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court, Cuttack — WP(C) No.6570 of 2026, Nirakar Sahoo v. State of Odisha and others (decided 05.03.2026, Aditya Kumar Mohapatra J.). The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 to sanction and release pension and pensionary benefits w.e.f. 01.02.2026 in terms of Rule-3 of the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981, invoking Sarat Chandra Parida v. State of Odisha (2015(II) ILRCUT-94, upheld in SLP CC No.(s) 761 of 2016) and Hemanta Kumar Chhotray v. State of Orissa (2024 (1) OLR 709). The State submitted the Chhotray matter was sub judice in Writ Appeal No.197 of 2024 but that no interim order stayed the Single Judge judgment. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petition, extending the benefits subject to the outcome of that Writ Appeal, with compliance within eight (8) weeks.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WP(C) No.6570 of 2026

Nirakar Sahoo

.....

Petitioner

Represented by Adv. - Sushree Sangita Pasayat

¶7

-versus-

¶8

State Of Odisha and others

¶9

..... Opposite Parties Smt. S. Nayak, ASC

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR

MOHAPATRA

ORDER

05.03.2026

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:-

¶19

“It is therefore prayed that; your Lordships shall be graciously pleased enough to admit the writ petition and after hearing the parties issue a writ of mandamus directing the Opp. Parties more particularly to the Opp. Party No.2 and 3 to sanction and release the pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. dtd. 01.02.2026 in

¶20

Page 1 of 3.

¶21

terms of Rule-3 of the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 keeping in view of the ratio decided by this Hon'ble Court in case of Sarat Chandra Parida Vrs. State of Odisha, reported in 2015(II) ILRCUT-94 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP CC NO (s) 761 of 2016 disposed of on 19.01.2016 (Sate of Odisha & Others Vrs Sri Sarat Chandra Parida) and so also in the case of Hemant Kumar Chhotray Vrs State of Odisha & Others (W.P(C) No.17067 of 2023 disposed of on 12.01.2024 along with batch of cases where in within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

¶22

Issue any direction/directions, order/ orders, writ/writs which would be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;”

¶23

The subject matter of this petition is substantially similar to the one in Hemanta Kumar Chhotray v. State of Orissa and others , 2024 (1) OLR 709 and therefore, counsel for the Petitioner submits that the benefit given to litigants in the subject case should be extended his client as well.

¶24

Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the StateOpposite Parties submits that the said matter is subjudice in Writ Appeal No.197 of 2024. However, on being asked, he tells that there is no interim order staying the judgment of the learned Single Judge. This Court in a number of similar matters has already ordered extension of the said benefits subject to outcome of the Writ Appeal and therefore, the same course needs to be adopted here also, if there are no other legal impediments.

¶25