Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.13598 of 2026 Bhaskar Bisoyi ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Saroja Kanta Samal -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - Mr. S.K.Parhi, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 06.05.2026 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 Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Therefore, in view of the facts mentioned above, it is humbly prayed before this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ may be issued and directing the opposite parties to grant pension in favour of the petitioner upon his retirement from service in accordance with the provisions contained in the Orissa Educational Page 2 of 3. Institutions Employees' Retirement Benefit Rules 1981 keeping in view of the ratio decided by this Hon'ble Court Sarat Chandra Parida Vs. State of Odisha and Ors reported in 2015 (11)ILRCTC 94, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also keeping in view the ratio decided in the case of Hemant Kumar Chhotaray Vrs. State of Odisha and others., within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and his arrear pension may also be calculated and paid to him forthwith. And any other order/orders or direction/directions maybe issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner.” 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 the 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 extensions 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 Page 3 of 3. to outcome of the writ appeal mentioned above. Compliance within eight (8) weeks. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Rubi