IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.37705 of 2025 Purna Chandra Behera &. Petitioner Dr. J.K. Lenka, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. &. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, ASC COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 06.01.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- <The petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays that your Lordship's would be graciously pleased to issue a Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the impugned order dated 04/03/2023 at Annexure-5 treating the entire period of leave as EOL should not be quashed and as to why the O.P No. 2 (Director of Fisheries) should not be directed sanction the leave on the basis of the recommendation made by the District Fisheries Officer dated 22/08/2022 and sanction the said leave for 300 days as earned leave and 280 days as HPL due at is credit and sanction release the leave salary as due and admissible under law and fix the pay of the petitioner under ORSP Rules, 2008 w.e.f 01.01.2006 with differential arrear salary to the petitioner. And further pleased to direct the opp. Parties to release pension, gratuity, unutilised leave salary, commuted value of pension and other pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner with interest as admissible under law. And/or pass other such order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper for the ends of justice; p. 2 p. 2 And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.=. 4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that highlighting his grievance, Petitioner has made a representation to Opposite Party No.2 vide Annexure-7 and the same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time, to which learned Counsel for the State has no objection. 5. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ Petition directing Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation filed by the Petitioner vide Annexure-7 within a period of four (4) weeks in accordance with law from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat