Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.11097 of 2026 Lalit Mohan Mishra ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. – Mr. Pradeep Kumar Das -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 20.04.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner has made the following prayer:- “On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice, call for the records and after hearing the Parties further be pleased to:- (i) direct/order that, the Opposite Parties shall release the salary w.e.f. 26.12.2012 to 31.01.2020, arrear block grant, arrear salary, Pension and other post-retirement benefits of the Petitioner with immediate effect as the Petitioner has been retired from his service w.e.f. 31.01.2020 within a stipulated period under such terms and conditions. Page 2 of 4. (ii). Pass such other order (s)/direction (s) as would deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Classical Teacher w.e.f. 29.10.1997. He further contended that the Petitioner approached the State Educational Tribunal by filing G.I.A. No.25 of 2004 and by virtue of judgment dated 10.12.2004, application of the Petitioner was allowed and he was extended the benefit of Block Grant. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that although the judgment of the Tribunal challenged before this Court by the State-Opposite Pa1rties, however, the judgment of the Tribunal was upheld by dismissing the State appeal. Finally, vide Notification dated 27.09.2008, the School of the Petitioner was declared to be eligible to receive Block Grant w.e.f. 01.04.2008. 5. While this was the position, the then Inspector of Schools issued a letter to the Petitioner’s School for verification of the records and staff pattern for releasing of Block Grant on 25.11.2008. Finally, the Government approved the School for receiving Block Grant on 08.06.2009 and with effect from 14.08.2009 the post of the Petitioner was approved by the Government for receiving Block Grant. While working as such, the Petitioner finally retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.01.2020. 6. The sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is that although the Petitioner has retired since 2020, Page 3 of 4. however he has neither received the arrear dues as per the Block Grant salary nor the retiral and pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to him. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that before approaching this Court he had also approached the Opposite Parties on several occasions and the last representation was filed on 22.11.2024 at Annexure-11 before the Opposite Party No.4-District Education Officer, Bhadrak. 8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, taking into consideration the documents annexed to the writ petition, it appears that the grievance of the Petitioner is still pending before the Opposite Party No.4 for redressal. He further submitted this in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.4 to look into the grievance of the Petitioner and to pass necessary order in accordance with law and applicable rules within stipulated period of time, he will have no objection to the same. 9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts of the present writ petition, further taking into consideration the limited nature of grievance, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by Page 4 of 4. directing the Opposite Party No.4 to consider the grievance of the Petitioner in accordance with law and the applicable rules and the representation of the Petitioner be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis