Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.4631 of 2026 Bal Gopal Mahapatra ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Sadasiva Patra (1) -versus- 1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Director, Higher Education, Odisha 3) G.b. Of Boudh Panchayat College, Boudh Represented by Adv. – Smt. S. Nayak, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 24.02.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present writ application the Petitioner has made the following prayer:- “In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ / writs in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to extend the benefits of Lecturer (Group-A) Scale and Reader (State Scale) to the Petitioner w.e.f.01.06.2009 and 01.06.2019 respectively under the Odisha Non- Government Aided College Lecturer's Placement Rules, 2014 and letter dtd.17.10.2015 under Annexure-6 & 7 respectively within a stipulated period of time. Page 2 of 3. And pass any other order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper. And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall remain ever pray.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by this Court in Lokanath Behera vs. State of Odisha in W.P.(C) No.2062 of 2024 decided on 13.08.2025. He further contended that ventilating his grievance the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation dated 08.12.2025 at Annexure-8 to the writ application. Since no decision has been taken on such representation of the Petitioner, the Petitioner being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Party No.1 has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter. However, in the event the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a representation, as has been indicated in the present writ application, he will have no objection this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law and dispose of the same within a stipulated period of time. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background fact, further taking note of the fact that the issue involved in the present writ application was dejectedly and substantially in issue Page 3 of 3. in Lokanath Behera’s case (supra), this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ application by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner at Annexure-8, if it is still pending, within a period of eight weeks’ from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. It is further directed that while considering the representation the Opposite Party No.1 shall take into consideration, the ratio laid down by this Court in Lokanath Behera’s case (supra) and accordingly, dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Sisir Designation: Personal Assistant