Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.19471 of 2026 Laxminarayan Kar ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Mahendra Kumar Sahoo -versus- State of Orissa & 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 petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this writ application by granting following relief: (A) Writ of mandamus be issued directing the 0pp. Parties to release pension and all other retiral benefits in favour ot the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Odisha Aided Educational Institutions Employees Retirement Benefit Rules 1981, following the judgment-in- rem dtd. 12.01.2024 passed in W.P. (C) No. 17067/2023 Page 2 of 3. Hemanta Chhotray and W.P. (C) No.7580/2014 and a batch of cases of the Hon'ble High Court, Orissa within a stipulated time (B) Or in alternative, in the interest of justiee & equity, any other appropriate Writ(s), direction(s), order(s) be passed so as to give complete relief to the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 12.01.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.17067 of 2023 in the matter of Hemanta Kumar Chhotaray vs. State of Orissa & Ors. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that inaction of the Opposite Parties in extending similar benefits in favour of the petitioner is highly illegal and that necessary direction to be given to the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner in terms of the ratio laid down by this Court in Hemanta Kumar Chhotaray’s case (supra). 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the Petitioner has approached this Court without approaching the Opposite Parties for redressal of his grievance. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that in the event this Court directs the Opposite Parties to consider the representation of the Petitioner, provided the Petitioner files a representation for redressal of his grievance, within a stipulated period of time and strictly in accordance with law, he will have no objection to the same. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts, further taking into consideration limited nature of the grievance and the fact that the Petitioner has not approached the Page 3 of 3. Opposite Parties before approaching this Court, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with supporting documents and copies of the judgments relied upon by the Petitioner in support of his claim within three weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law and by applying ratio laid down by this Court in the judgment dated 12.01.2024 as has been referred to hereinabove and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Rubi