Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.35443 of 2025 Pratibha Seth ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Atul Tripathy -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - Mr. S.Behera, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 13.07.2026 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to; i) quash the impugned letter No.2306 dt. 17.11.2025 of the DEO-cum-DPC under Annexure-11 by further directing the OPs No.4 to 7 to regularise the of period of Study Leave of the petitioner on "no work no pay" basis and to allow her to discharge her duties as Jr. Teacher, Govt. Primary School, At-Gandapali with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits, Page 2 of 3. ii) pass such other order (s) as deemed fit and proper in the bonafide interest of justice and fair play.” 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that although the Petitioner has approached the D.E.O.-cum-DPC, Samagra Sikhya Abhiyan, Subarnapur-Opposite Party No.5 by filing a detailed representation on 09.09.2025 and the same has been received by the Office of the Opposite Party No.5, till date no final decision has been taken on such representation of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties in redressing the grievance of the Petitioner, the Petitioner had no other alternative but to approach this Court by filing the present writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that he has no specific instruction in the matter and the State- Opposite Parties have not filed a counter affidavit in the absence of any instruction. He further contended that in the event the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.5 by filing a detailed representation for redressal of his grievance and no final decision has been taken on such representation of the Petitioner, he will have no objection if this Court directs the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.5 for redressal of his grievance with a corresponding direction to such Opposite Parties to consider the representation of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law, within a stipulated period of time. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the Page 3 of 3. background facts as well as the grievance of the Petitioner as involved in the present writ petition, this Court is of the view that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.5 by filing a fresh representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.5 shall do well to consider the grievance of the Petitioner, as would be raised in his representation, within a period of eight weeks by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.5 be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. Since this writ application is being disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.5 for redressal of his grievance, interim order dated 11.12.2025 shall continue for a period of eight weeks or till disposal of the representation by the Opposite Party No.5. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi