Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.7304 of 2026 Bhaskar Chandra Majhi ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Sangram Jena -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. S. Behera, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 10.03.2026 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:- “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to:- i) Admit the writ application. ii) Call for the records. iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ/writs direction/directions directing the State- Opposite parties to extend the pensionary and other retiral benefit in favour of the present petitioner on account of her retirement in terms of the Odisha Aided Educational Institution Employees Retirement Benefit Page 2 of 3. Rule, 1981, keeping in view the ratio decided in the case of Sarat Ch. Parida-vrs.-State of Odisha and others reported in (2015) (II) ILR-CTCpage 94 as well as in terms of the common judgment passed by this Hon'ble court in the case of Hemant Kumar Chhotaray -vrs.- State of Odisha and others reported in 2024(I)OLR-709 within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. iv) And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper for the ends of Justice. And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 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 eight(8) weeks. Page 3 of 3. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Sisir Designation: Personal Assistant