IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.10309 of 2013 Dr. Kishore Ch. Mishra …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Purohit, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa & another …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.P. Behera, ASC for OP Nos.1 & 2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO Order No. ORDER 08.05.2026 (Hybrid Mode) 04. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. The matter was presented before this Court on 30.4.2013. On 27.06.2013, defects were directed to be removed by the Division Bench. Thereafter, determination of the Benches of this Court having changed, the matter is placed before this Bench for consideration. 2. The Writ Petition has been listed with the note put up by the Registry that the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9828 of 2024 is placed for reference marked at Flag-A. Perusal of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court indicates that the order has been passed in a batch of Civil Appeals, i.e., Civil Appeal No.9828 of 2024 and 64 nos. of Civil Appeals. 3. It would be apt to reproduce the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Civil Appeal: “ xxx xxx xxx 2. Arising out of the judgment dated 11.12.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court directing the Director of the Education to decide the representation in terms of the observations made in the order, the present appeals have been filed. 3. Having considered the submissions of the parties and taking note of the fact that the issue of payment of the UGC Scale is to be decided by the Director of Education in terms of the order. The said order is merely in the nature of remand; however, we are not inclined to entertain the present appeals. 4. In this view, let the decision be taken by the Director of Education in accordance with law within a period of three months. On taking such decision, parties are at liberty to take recourse as permissible. All the contentions are left open for them to be raised at appropriate stage. The directions as issued in this case shall apply mutatis mutandis to intervenors also. 5. Accordingly, the appeals stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to the prayer made in the Writ Petition, which is reproduced herein: “It is therefore prayed that Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to -admit this case, issue notice to the o.p.s asking them to show cause as to why the petitioner shall not be allowed the benefit of U.G.C. scale of pay, when the opposite parties are granting benefit of U.G.C. Scale of „pay 10 the other lecturers, and on hearing if they show insufficient or no reason, then issue a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties directing them to pay U.G.C. scale of pay to the petitioner along with arrear differential salary from the date he is entitled thereto in terms of the binding resolution within a stipulated period as deemed proper.” It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that orders rendered by the learned Single Judge was challenged by filing SLPs before the Hon’ble Apex Court which has been disposed of by the order as is reproduced above. 5. In considered opinion of this Court after the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLPs arising out of similar judgment/orders of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that involve similar prayer before this Court, no purpose would be served by keeping the present Writ Petition pending. Paragraph-4 of the order Hon’ble Apex Court quoted above is followed and applied in the present Writ Petition. 6. It is submitted by learned Additional Government Advocate that he has no instruction as on date, whether the case of the Petitioner has been considered and appropriate decision has been taken by the authority. 7. Though it is suggested by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the case of the Petitioner has also been remanded and is covered by the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in order dated 29.01.2026, apparently the present Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner in 2013 which is still pending consideration and disposal before this Court. 8. Therefore, by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court it is directed that let decision regarding the claim of the Petitioner be taken by the Director of Higher Education in accordance with law within a period of three months from today, if not already taken in the meantime. In absence of the particular details regarding consideration of the case of the petitioner, it is further clarified that either of the parties shall have the liberty to seek further clarification/modification of this order, if so advised. 9. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. 10. The Petitioner shall produce certified copy of this order before the Director, Higher Education. The authority shall act upon the production Amit of the certified copy of this order. The parties shall also have the liberty to proceed on the basis of the copy of order obtained from the Official Website of this Court. 11. It is further clarified that no part of this order shall be treated to be opinion on merits of the case of the Writ Petitioner in the present Writ Petition and that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding contentions of the parties to the Writ Petition. (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge