Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.28181 of 2025 Prabhat Chandra Pradhan ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. – M/s. Nihal Rath, J.Prakash, S. Rajguru, S.Mohapatra, A. Dash -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. Sarbeswar Behera, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 03.02.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional 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 Petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased Admit the writ application, to issue rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the prayers made hereunder be not allowed, upon showing insufficient cause/ no cause make the said Rule absolute. Issue writ/ writs in the nature of Page 2 of 3. i. Mandamus quashing the order of opp. Party No. 1 dtd.06.12.2024 under Annexure-16 and the consequential notification dtd. 15.02.2025 under Annexure-I7 and direct the opp. Parties to extend the benefit of pay protection and Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) promotion in favour of the petitioner taking into account the service rendered by the petitioner in KVK under the OUAT within a period stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. ii. And/or may pass such other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper for the ends of justice.” 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that ventilating his grievance, the Petitioner has already approached the Registrar, OUAT, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.3 by filing a detail representation dated 20.08.2025 at Annexure-20. He further contended that although such representation has been filed a long ago before the Opposite Party No.3, however, no decision has been taken on such representation of the Petitioner. He further contended that similar benefits have already been extended in favour of the similarly situated persons, which is evident from the Resolution of the Board of Management dated 11.07.2025 at Annexure-22. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite Party No.3, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the State, at the outset, contended that although he has no specific instruction in this matter, however, taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.3, the competent authority, for redressal of his grievance by filing a representation at Annexure-20 to the writ application and in the event of such representation is Page 3 of 3. pending before the opposite Party No.3, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.3 to consider such representation in accordance with the law and within a stipulated period of time. 6. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the limited nature of the grievance, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ application by directing the Opposite Party No.3 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner dated 20.08.2025 at Annexure-20 within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioner. The representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order and by taking into consideration the Resolution of the Board of Management dated 11.07.2025 at Annexure-22. The final decision so taken on such representation be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis/Suchitra