Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.37493 of 2025 Rajendra Pradhan ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Prajit Kumar Pradhan -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – C.M. Singh, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 30.06.2026 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard leaned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present writ application the Petitioner has sought for the following relief. In the facts and circumstances stated above, the humble Petitioner respectfully prays that, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:- (i) Admit the writ application; (ii) Direct the 0pp. Parties to approval the appointment of the petitioner against the post of Night Watchmancum- sweeper and to release Grant in Aid in his favour as per Grant in Aid order 2008 within a stipulated time frame; (iii) Direct the Opp.Parties to pay 18% interest per annum on the G.I.A. amount which is legal entitlement of the petitioner from the date of it due; Page 2 of 3. And / or pass any such other or further writ(s)/ order(s) / direction(s) which give complete relief to the Petitioner; And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner being aggrieved by the conduct of the Opposite Parties approached the Orissa Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under Section 24-B of the Orissa Education Act. 1969. The learned Tribunal after hearing of the Petitioner as well as the Opposite Party-State disposed of GIA Case No.193 of 2009 by virtue of judgment dated 31.05.2011 at Annexure-1 to the writ application. 5. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ application is that although the GIA case filed by the Petitioner has already been disposed of by virtue of the judgment at Annexure-1 to the writ application however, the direction given by the learned Tribunal has not been carried out by the Opposite Party No.3 therein and the case of the Petitioner has not been considered for the post of Night Watchman- cum-Sweeper and his case has not been recommended properly for release of the GIA within the time stipulated by the learned Tribunal in its order. It is not disputed at the bar that the order dated 31.05.2011 has attained finality. As the State has not preferred any further appeal against that. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the view that by filing the present writ application the Petitioner seeks execution of the order dated 31.05.2011. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State objected to the maintainability of the present writ application on the ground that the Tribunal has power to execute its own order and, by filing the present writ application, the Petitioner cannot pray for execution of the order passed by the learned Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar. Page 3 of 3. 7. On a careful consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Parties, this Court found substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the State. Accordingly, while disposing of the present writ application, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to approach the learned State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar by filing an execution case. In the event the execution case is filed for executing order dated 31.05.2011, the learned Tribunal shall take necessary steps in the matter and ensure that the order passed by him, in the event the same has attained finality, is executed in the manner as has been provided by law. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ application stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Sisir Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT