Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.37359 of 2025 Madhab Ranjan Rout & Anr. ..... Petitioners Represented by Adv. - Premananda Mohanty -versus- State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – D.K. Sahoo, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 13.01.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners with the following prayers:- “Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be allowed; And (A) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued commanding the opposite parties to extend the benefit of leave to the petitioners as per the Odisha Education (Leave of Teachers and other Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1977 and Page 2 of 3. the benefit of pension upon their retirement from service as per the Odisha Aided Educational Institutions Employees' Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 keeping in view the decisions of this Hon'ble Court rendered in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul Vs. State of Odisha (School & Mass Education Department) & others reported in 2016 (1) ILR CTC 1162 and in the case of Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra and others Vs. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.23312 of 2020 disposed of on 28.09.2021), within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court; (B) And any other order / orders or direction / directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioners;” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners argues that similar matters having been disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, relief is directed to be granted vide Ritanjali Giri @ Paul v. State of Odisha and others, 2016(1) ILR-CUT-1162 and therefore, similar benefit needs to be extended to his client on principle of parity and equity. He also submits that despite his clients’ representation dated 13.05.2025, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-4, no decision is taken by the Director, Elementary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, and therefore, this Court should come to the aid of petitioner. 5. Learned ASC appearing for the OPs initially resisted the petition stating that the representation is given only in May, 2025 and that the authorities should be given reasonable breathing period so that a decision is taken on the said representation and therefore, the petition is premature. Having so contended, now, he agrees to instruct the jurisdictional OP to look into the grievance of the petitioners, as has been aired in the subject representation, in accordance with law, if all contentions are kept open. This is Page 3 of 3. appreciable. 6. In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of. A direction issues to the jurisdictional OP to consider the representation dated 13.05.2025 at Annexure-4 in accordance with law and inform the result of such consideration to the petitioners within an outer limit of eight weeks. It hardly needs to be stated that such consideration should happen in the light of Coordinate Bench decision in Ritanjali Giri @ Paul’s case (supra). All the contentions are kept open. 7. It is open to the answering OP to solicit any information or documents from the side of the Petitioners, as required for taking a decision on the subject representation. However, in that guise delay shall not be brooked. Now, no costs. Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer