Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16681 of 2026 Dasaratha Mohapatra ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv.- Mr. Surendra Kumar Sahoo -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.- Smt. Sasmita Nayak, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 29.06.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid 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:- “It is therefore humbly prayed that, under the above circumstances your Lordships shall be graciously pleased enough to admit the writ application and after hearing the parties issue a writ of mandamus directing the Opp. Parties more particularly to the Opp. Party No.3 to sanction and pay the pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.08.2025 in terms of Rule-3 of the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees Retirement Benefit Page 2 of 3. Rules, 1981 and keeping in view of the ratio decided by this Hon'ble Court in case of Sarat Chandra Parida -vrs- State of Odisha, reported in 2015(II) ILR-CUT-94 and as per the decision of this Hon'ble Court dated 12.01.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.17067 of 2023, Hemant Kumar Chhotray Vs. State of Odisha and others and batch of cases, within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court; And/or pass such other order/orders, writ/writs, direction/ directions as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the 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, she 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 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 Debasis