Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.19457 of 2026 Himanshu Shekhar Sahu ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Satyajit Samal -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - Mr. D.K.Sahoo, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 02.07.2026 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 Government Advocate appearing 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 prayers:- “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to: i) Admit the writ application ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to grant RACP benefits to the petitioner as per Finance Department Resolution dated. 05.02.2013 read with the judgement pronounced in 0. A. No.1668 of 2017 disposed of on 09.10.2018, W. P. (C) No. 6698 of 2020 disposed of Page 2 of 3. on 13.03.2020 and SLP No. 15573 of 2020 disposed of on dated. 04.01.2021 by computing the entire period of service rendered during the pre-taken over period w.e.f. receiving of grant. And pass such other or further order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for both the parties agreed that the issue involved in this writ petition is analogues to one involved in O.A. No.1668 of 2017 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa), which was disposed of by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal vide judgment dated 09.10.2018 and confirmed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6698 of 2020 and further confirmed by the apex Court in SLP(C) No.15573 of 2020. 5. In view of the above and considering the limited prayer to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered in Ashok Kumar Mohapatra (supra), this writ petition stands disposed of directing the competent authority to dispose of the case of the petitioner applying the decision rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Mohapatra (supra) by undertaking the entire exercise within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. 6. Petitioner is directed to serve an extra copy of the brief on learned State Counsel for School & Mass Education Department for communication purpose. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. Page 3 of 3. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Rubi