SHANTILATA THANAPATI vs STATE OF ODISHA — WP(C)/9843/2026

Case under Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: ODHC010214192026

Filing Number

WP(C)/12616/2026

Filing Date

23-Mar-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/9843/2026

Registration Date

28-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Coram

Mr. Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SERVICE MATTERS ( 31 )

Sub-Category

RETIRAL BENEFITS ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHANTILATA THANAPATI

    Adv. TRILOCHAN NANDA,B.K.PANDA, D.KAR,B.K.PANDA, D.KAR, B.K.PANDA, D.KAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF ODISHA

  2. 2.COLLECTOR, BALANGIR

  3. 3.CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, OSRTC, BHUBANESWAR

  4. 4.DISTRICT TRANSPORT MANAGER, OSRTC, BALANGIR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Biraja Prasanna SatapathyView PDF

    The Orissa High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by Shantilata Thanapati (widow of a deceased employee) seeking release of CPF amount with 12% interest by directing Opposite Party No.4 to consider her representation in accordance with law within three months, without expressing any opinion on the case merits. The matter was resolved through mutual agreement between both counsels. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Mr. Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/9843/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Orissa High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by Shantilata Thanapati (widow of a deceased employee) seeking release of CPF amount with 12% interest by directing Opposite Party No.4 to consider her representation in accordance with law within three months, without expressing any opinion on the case merits. The matter was resolved through mutual agreement between both counsels. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case