Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.37318 of 2025 Balavadra Behera ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Nrusingh Ch. Rout -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 12.01.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as 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 your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ petition and issue a Rule NISI to the opp. parties to show cause as to;- i)Why the Opp. Parties shall not be directed to grant promotion in favour of the petitioner to Level-II of Odisha Elementary Cadre rule 1997 w.e.f. 01.08.2008 and promotion to Level-I w.e.f. 09.10.2010 i.e. the date from which junior namely Madhusudan Chakra and Rabindranath Panigrahi were given with all consequential service and financial benefit and revise pension in favour of the petitioner; Page 2 of 3. ii) Why the opposite party No-2. the Director of Elementary Education Odisha shall not be directed to consider and disposed of the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-10 with in a stipulated time. iii) And any other order as deem necessary and fit be passed in the facts and circumstance. And if the opp.parties fail to show cause or showed insufficient cause then the Rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate Writ (s)/ order (s), direction(s) as deem fit and proper;” 4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner may be granted liberty to file a fresh representation ventilating his grievance before the Opposite Party No.2 which may be considered within a stipulated period of time in accordance with law. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that the Petitioner should have approached the competent authority before approaching this Court by filing the present writ petition. He further submitted that the representation dated 18.05.2024, which has been annexed as Annexure-10, does not have any acknowledgement authorities. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the authorities have received a copy of such representation. He further submitted that in the event this Court directs the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Parties with a corresponding direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioner in accordance with law, he will have no objection to the same. 6. In view of the aforesaid limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, this Court disposes of the writ petition granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Opposite Party Page 3 of 3. No.2 ventilating his grievance within a period of two weeks. If such a representation is filed within the time stipulated, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the Opposite Party No.2 within a period of six weeks from the date of filing representation by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The decision so taken on the same shall be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of ten days from the date of taking such a decision. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout