Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.11423 of 2026 Kailas Chandra Mishra ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Jyotirmay Gupta -versus- state of Odisha & ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – C.M. Singh, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 02.05.2026 Order No. 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 appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “The petitioner therefore humble prays that the Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this case, issue notice to opposite parties for show cause and after hearing both the sides may be pleased to issue a Page 2 of 3. writ of Mandamus/certiorari by directing the opposite parties particularly to O.P.No.-1 and 4 to take immediate steps to grant the pension and other pensionary as well as retrial financial benefits in favour of the present petitioner in terms of Odisha Aided Educational Institution Employees Retirement Benefits Rules, 1981, keeping in view ratio decided in case of Sarat Chandra Parida vs. State of Odisha & Others reported in (2015) (II) ILR-CTC page-94 and also the subsequent common judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the case Hemanta Kumar Chhotaray vs.- State of Odisha & others, Judgment dated 12.01.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 17067 of 2023 reported in 2024 (I) OLR-709. vide Annexure-5 within stipulated period with cost. And Further be pleased to pass any other order/ Direction(s) which this Hon’ble Court thinks fit and proper to this case.” 4. The subject matter of this petition is substantially similar to the one in Hemanta Kumar Chhotray v. State of Orissa and others, 2024 (1) OLR 709 and therefore, counsel for the Petitioner submits that the benefit given to litigants in the subject case should be extended his client as well. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties submits that the said matter is subjudice in Writ Appeal No.197 of 2024. However, on being asked, he tells that there is no interim order staying the judgment of the learned Single Judge. This Court in a number of similar matters has already ordered extension of the said benefits subject to outcome of the Writ Appeal and therefore, the same course needs to be adopted here also, if there are no other legal impediments. 6. Ordered accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of subject to outcome of the writ appeal mentioned above. Compliance within Page 3 of 3. eight(8) weeks. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer