Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.14399 of 2026 Laxman Kand ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Kalpataru Khuntia -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Sasmita Nayak, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 12.05.2026 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-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Opposite Parties, more specifically the Opp. party No.1, to re-designate the petitioner as Assistant Professor (Stage-I) in terms of Resolution dated 04.04.2016 and also direct grant of all consequential service and financial benefits, including arrears; Page 2 of 3. And pass any other order/orders in the interest of justice; And for this act of kindness the counsel for the Petitioners in duty bound most humbly pray.” 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that ventilating his grievance of the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a representation on 21.04.2026 at Annexure-4 to the writ application. He further contended that although the Petitioner is eligible for re-designation as Assistant Professor (Stage-I) in terms of the Government Resolution dated 04.04.2016, however, the Petitioner has not been re-designated as such by the Opposite Parties. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner had earlier approached the Opposite Parties by filing a representation. Since no action has been taken by the Opposite Parties on the representation of the Petitioner, the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing the present writ application. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that she has no specific instruction in the matter, however, taking into consideration the nature of the grievance involved in the present writ application and the fact that the dispute involved in the present writ application is still pending for consideration before the Opposite Party No.1 in the shape of his representation dated 21.04.2026 at Annexure-4 and in the meantime, no decision has been taken thereon, she will have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to take a lawful decision on the representation of the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time. 6. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the respective Page 3 of 3. Parties, on a careful examination of the grievance of the Petitioner further taking note of the documents annexed to the present writ application and the fact that the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.1 for redressal of his grievance, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner at Annexure-4, which is still pending, strictly in accordance with law and the applicable rules within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. It is needless to mention here that the representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by taking into consideration the resolution of the State Government dated 04.04.2016 at Annexure-2 and by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.1 be 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. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer