Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.3680 of 2026 Satyabhama Nayak ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Rashmi Kanta Acharya -versus- State Of Odisha & Others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Ms. Sasmita Nayak, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 19.02.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel 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 prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, call for the records, issue notice to the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why appropriate direction shall not be issued to the Opp. Party No.4 to grant MACP in favour of the petitioner on completion of 30 years of consecutive service to which she is entitled to. Page 2 of 3. And if the Opp. Parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opp. Party No.4 to grant MACP in favour of the petitioner on completion of 30 years of consecutive service to which she is entitled to. And further pass any Order/Orders or Direction/Directions as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper” 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that ventilating her grievance she has already approached the Block Education Officer, Hatadihi, Keonjhar-Opposite Party No.4 by filing a detailed representation dated 20.06.2025, at annexure-2 to the present writ application. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the said representation is pending as of now. The Further grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ application is that although the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Party No.4 for redressal of her grievance, no final decision has been taken on his representation as of yet. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Party No.4, the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing the present writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that though he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.4, the Competent Authority, she shall have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.4 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with the law and within a stipulated period of time. 6. Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, Page 3 of 3. the writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party No.4 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-2 to the writ application within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.4 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-2 by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.4 be also communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observation/ direction, the writ application stands disposed of. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Suchitra Designation: Junior Stenographer