Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.36629 of 2025 Sk.aktar Hussain ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Dhaneswar Behera -versus- 1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Director,secondary Education, Bhubaneswar 3) District Education Officer, Cuttack Represented by Adv. – Mr. U.C. Jena,A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 12.01.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: - i) Admit the writ petition; ii) Call for the records; iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing Opp. Party No. 3 to accept the pension paper of the petitioner and forward the same to Opp. Party No. 1 & 2 for sanction of pension and accordingly the Opp. Party No. 1 & 2 be further directed to sanction the pension of the petitioner in terms of the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees Page 2 of 3. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1981; iv) And/or pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper for the ends of justice.” 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the issue involved in the present writ application has already been adjudicated in an identical matter by the coordinate bench in Rekhanjali Behera vs. State of Odisha and others decided in W.P.(C) No.32964 of 2025 vide order dated 10.12.2025. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit at par with the abovenoted Rekhanjali Behera. It was also contended that the learned coordinate bench has adjudicated a similar matter in Hemant Kumar Chhotaray vs. State of Odisha and others decided on 12.01.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the Petitioner has not approached the Competent Authority for redressal of his grievance. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that in the event this Court directs the Competent Authority to consider the grievance of the Petitioner, in the event the Petitioner approaches the Competent Authority, he will have no objection the same. 6. Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 as well as D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 laying down the principle that pension is not a boundary and that the delay in considering disbursal of the pensionary benefit is required to be dealt with strict action, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present Page 3 of 3. writ application by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.3 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents within three weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.3 shall consider the grievance of the Petitioner and dispose of the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order within eight weeks thereafter, keeping in view the judgments referred to hereinabove. The final decision so taken by the Opposite party No.3 be communicated to the petitioner within ten days thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi