Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 21216 of 2025 Sushil Kumar Rath ..... Petitioner Mr. K.K. Dash, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 08.01.2026 Order No. 02 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. K.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “The petitioner therefore prays that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to consider the facts stated in the writ petition, issue notice to the Opp. parties as to why writ of mandamus shall not be issued directing the opposite party to release the pensionary benefit accrues to the petitioner from the date of his eligibility to receive the pension along with other benefits. If they fails to show cause make the rule absolute quashing the order under Annexure 9. And/or pass any other writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders, as the Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Page 2 of 3. And for this act of your kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. It is contended that claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.07.04.2022 under Annexure-9 by Opp. Party No. 1. 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected is no more sustainable in view of the order passed by this Court in the case of Khageswar Jena vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 29993 of 2022) so affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with a batch of appeals, the leading case being State of Odisha & Ors. vs. G. Balakrishna, SLP(C) Diary No. 33400 of 2023 disposed of on 24.07.2025. It is accordingly contended that the matter be remitted to Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim in the light of the decision passed in the case of Khageswar Jena so affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G. Balakrishna as cited (supra). 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since Petitioner’s claim has once been rejected, it requires no further consideration. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submission made and placing reliance on the order passed in the case of Khageswar Jena so affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G. Balakrishna as cited (supra), this Court is of the view that Petitioner’s claim requires a fresh consideration in the light of the said order. Page 3 of 3. 6.1. Therefore, this Court while quashing the impugned order dtd.07.04.2022, remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim in the light of order passed in the case of Khageswar Jena so affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G. Balakrishna as cited (supra) within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha