Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7922 (ORI)

RAGHUNATH PRAMANIK v. STATE OF ODISHA

WP(C)/12777/2026 · 2026-04-29

Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page 1 of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.12777 of 2026 Raghunath Pramanik ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Niranjan Nayak -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – U.C. Jena, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 29.04.2026 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 of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to grant pension and pensionary benefits in favour of the present petitioner under Orissa Aided Educational Institution Employees Retirement Benefits Rule, 1981 by accepting the application form within a reasonable time to be stipulated by Page 2 of 2. this Hon’ble Court within the prescribed rate of interest as due and admissible. And pass any other order/orders or direction/ directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 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. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer