Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.36759 of 2025 Dr.Mamatarani Behera ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Sameer Kumar Das -versus- 1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Registrar, Utkal University, Vani Vihar 3) Vice Chancellor, Utkal University, Represented by Adv. – Mr. S.Behera, A.G.A. 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 Mr. S.K.Das for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. Petitioner, is an employee of Utkal University, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court grieving against non-sanctioning of advance increments for PhD Degree in entry level of university service and the benefits of CAS in terms of govt. resolution dated 31.12.1999 at Annexure-5 & UGC regulation and further she prays for GPF and the benefit of old pension rule and refixation of her pay. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Page 2 of 3. the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356 has held that the delayed sanctioning and releasing of benefits of a an employee would not augur well to the Model State ordained by the Constitution of India and there are a catena of decisions, including Ananda Dash v. State of Odisha and others, 2014 (Supp-1) OLR-754 confirmed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein direction issued to bring the employee into old pension rule if appointed pursuant to an advertisement issued prior to 01.01.2005. The duty to pay the benefits having not been discharged, despite representations dated 24.05.2024 & 01.11.2025, the grievance aired therein has not been addressed, and that there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for such lapse attributable to the University. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the State, having resisted the petition on some procedural grounds, submits that the calculation and computation is bit complex and that would take some time; may be in this case it has taken more time which is deplorable, and that the representations of the petitioner would be positively considered, inasmuch as there is no dispute about the regularization of her services vide order dated 09.10.2023 with retrospective effect from 05.08.2004 and, therefore, some reasonable time be granted. This is a bit gracious. 6. In the above circumstances, writ petition is disposed of; a direction is issued to the opposite party-University to consider the subject representations, sanction and release the benefits of the petitioner within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks, failing Page 3 of 3. which, the amount would carry interest with respective effect from the date the same ought to have been paid. 7. Costs are reluctantly made easy. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi