ARUN KUMAR SAHU v. COMMISSIONER CUM SECY TO GOVT. PANCHAYAT RAJ AND D.W. DEPT, BBSR
WP(C)/15610/2025 · 2026-01-22
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4568 (ORI) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4568 (ORI) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15610 of 2025
Arun Kumar Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. K.K. Nayak, Adv. On behalf of Mr. G.C. Mohapatra
-versus-
Commissioner-cum-Secy. to Govt. Panchayat Raj & D.W. Dept., BBSR & Ors.
…. Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA COROM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Order No
ORDER 22.01.2026
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for Petitioner and learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-
“The petitioner therefore, most humbly prays that, your Lordships may be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, issue notice to the opposite parties to show cause as to why the first MACP of the petitioner shall not be sanctioned and paid to him and if the opposite parties fail to file their show cause or file insufficient cause, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue suitable direction/order to the opposite parties No.2 and 3 to sanction the first MACP of the petitioner at an early date; p. 2p. 2 And may pass any other
order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper; And for which act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound, ever pray.”
4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner state that highlighting his grievances, the Petitioner has made a representation to Opposite Party No.2 vide Annexure-2 and the same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time, to which learned Counsel for the State has no objection.
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.2 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-2 in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge Jyoti