Orissa High Court
WA/2716/2024 of STATE OF ODISHA Vs PRASANTA KUMAR MOHAPATRA on 1 July 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.2716 of 2024 State of Odisha & Another …. Appellants Mr. S. K. Jee, AGA -Versus- Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra & Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. P. K. Mohapatra, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.2716 of 2024
State of Odisha & Another
….
Appellants
Mr. S. K. Jee, AGA
-Versus-
Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra &
Others
….
Opp. Parties
Mr. P. K. Mohapatra, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Order No.
01.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
01.07.2026
State and its officials are in Intra-Court Appeal for laying a challenge to a learned Single Judge’s order dated 21.11.2023, whereby Respondent-employees’ W.P.(C) No.35135 of 2023 having been favoured, relief to him is accorded as under:
“6. Since the Petitioner has already been superannuated in the meantime, the Opposite Parties are directed to allow the Petitioner Grade Pay of Rs.6,600/- in PB-3, Scale of Pay of Rs. l 5,600- 39,100/- with effect from 01.01.2013 in terms of 1st paragraph of the impugned Order dated 25.02.2020, as directed by the Tribunal vide Order dated 11.12.2018 in O.A. No.2929 of 2018 and release the differential salary and pension of the Petitioner along with arrears within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the certified copy of this Order.
7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of.”
2. The appeal has been filed after brooking a delay of 282 days and an application in I.A. No.7125 of 2024 supported by affidavit accompanies the appeal memo.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent-employee in appreciable fairness submits that there is some plausible explanation for the delay brooked and therefore, he has no objection for allowing the application. In that view of the matter, application is allowed and delay is condoned.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the appeal papers, we are of the considered opinion that this Intra-Court Appeal is substantially similar to the one in W.A. No.17 of 2023 between State of Odisha v. Krushna Chandra Mallick heard and decided by Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 15.07.2025. In view of the same, what order has been made in the said cognate case has to decide the fate of this Appeal. In the above circumstances, the Appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be rejected and is accordingly dismissed in limine. The Appellants are directed to implement the order within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks, failing which it shall invite appropriate action. Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna S. Dixit) Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge
Madhusmita
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 02-Jul-2026 15:17:35 Signature Not Verified