Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.4140 of 2025 Biswajit Behera ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Gopal Sinha -versus- State Of Orissa and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 18.02.2025 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. 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. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Under the above facts and circumstances of the case the Petitioner humbly pray that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/ directions to the Opp. Parties to include the Petitioner name under the old General Provident Fund (Orissa) Rules, 1938 and the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 and give all the consequential financial and service benefits accrued out of the same within a stipulated period as per the judgment dated 03- 08-2023 in W.P.(C) No.20021 of 2018 in the case of State of Orissa & Another Vrs. Manas Kumar Page 2 of 3. Sahu & Others; AND pass such other order/orders ог direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper;” 4. At the outset learned counsel for the Petitioner, referring to the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of State of Orissa and Anr. v. Manas Kumar Sahu and Ors. in W.P.(C) No.20021 of 2018 decided on 03.08.2023 as well as the judgment in the case of Anand Das and Ors. v. State of Odisha reported in 2014 (1) ILR Cuttack 459, which have been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.35462-35464 of 2014, contended that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments of this Court. He further contended that vide letter dated 19.04.2024 under Annexure-13, the Additional Secretary to the Government, H & UD Department has issued a clarification with a further direction to reconsider the case of the Petitioner in the light of such clarification. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the clarification issued under Annexure-13 is erroneous as the law laid down by this Court has not been correctly interpreted. He further submitted that although the matter was remanded to the Government for re-examination, however, despite passage of several months in the meantime no examination has been done of the final order passed. Being aggrieved by such conduct of such Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, while supporting the clarification issued by the Govt., contended that in the event the matter is still pending before the authorities for re- examination as has been directed by the government vide letter dated 19.04.2024, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs Page 3 of 3. the Opposite Parties to take a decision with regard to redressal of the grievance of the present Petitioner as per law within a stipulated period of time. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the submission as well as the documents annexed to the writ petition, further keeping in view the fact that the issue is still pending before the Opposite Party No.4, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 4 to consider and dispose of the grievance of the Petitioner in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. Further, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation taking therein all the grounds with all supporting documents along with a copy of today’s order within two weeks from today before the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 4. The grievance of the Petitioner shall be redressed by passing a speaking and reasoned order and taking into consideration the contentions of the Petitioner. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout