BIKRAMADITYA BEHERA vs STATE OF ODISHA — WP(C)/12234/2026
Case under Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227. Disposed: --Disposed Off on 02nd May 2026.
CNR: ODHC010108042026
Filing Number
WP(C)/6160/2026
Filing Date
10-Feb-2026
Registration No
WP(C)/12234/2026
Registration Date
22-Apr-2026
Judge
Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Coram
Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
SERVICE MATTERS ( 31 )
Sub-Category
PAY SCALES ( 10 )
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Decision Date
02-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
--Disposed Off
Last updated 12-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.BIKRAMADITYA BEHERA
Adv. RANJIT SAMAL
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF ODISHA
-
2.DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ODISHA
-
3.SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF ODISHA, FINANCE DEPT.
-
4.DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KEONJHAR
-
5.CONTROLLER OF ACCOUNTS, ODISHA
-
6.BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, TELKOI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-May-2026
Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar MohapatraView PDF
The High Court of Orissa disposed of the writ petition and directed the State of Odisha to reconsider the petitioner's representation for Grade Pay Rs. 4,600 under the RACP/MACP Scheme within eight weeks, citing precedent established in the Saraswati Bhoi case which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. All contentions were kept open and the State was permitted to seek necessary information without unreasonable delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Apr-2026
Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar MohapatraView PDF
-
09-Apr-2026
For Orders
Deputy Registrar (Judicial)
-
13-Mar-2026
Deputy Registrar (Judicial)View PDF
-
13-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP(C)/12234/2026
The High Court of Orissa disposed of the writ petition and directed the State of Odisha to reconsider the petitioner's representation for Grade Pay Rs. 4,600 under the RACP/MACP Scheme within eight weeks, citing precedent established in the Saraswati Bhoi case which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. All contentions were kept open and the State was permitted to seek necessary information without unreasonable delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts