Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.14714 of 2026 Supriti Nayak ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Kunal Kumar Swain -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - Mr. A.Mohanty, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 12.05.2026 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-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: “Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be allowed; And (A) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued directing the opposite parties to release the salary components of the petitioner from the date of her eligibility in accordance with the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 i.e. 01.06.1997 instead of Block Grant with effect from 01.02.2009 as per the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009 keeping in view the judgment of this Hon'ble Court Page 2 of 3. rendered in the case of State of Odisha and another Vs, Ratnakar Mohapatra and another (F.A.O No.509 of 2014 disposed of on 19.03.2025 along with batch of cases) which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 25.03.2026 by dismissing several SLPs filed by the State Government, which were tagged to S.L.P (Civil) Diary No.6943 of 2026 and the differential arrears may be calculated and may be paid to the petitioner, within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court; (B) And any other order / orders or direction / directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner.” 4. In course of hearing of the writ application, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner ventilating her grievance has submitted representation before the Director, Higher Education, Odisha, Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-2. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the said representation is pending as of now. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that a direction be issued to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-2 within a stipulated period of time. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection if the representation of the Petitioner is considered by the Opposite Party No.2, which is stated to be pending, in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time. 6. Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, the writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to Page 3 of 3. consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 17.11.2025 under Annexure-2 within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.2 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.2 be also communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 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