Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.19827 of 2026 Kashinath Jena ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Kunal Kumar Swain -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 02.07.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned 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 / grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioner either with effect from 01.06.1995 or with effect from the date of his eligibility as per the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 instead of Block Grant with effect from 01.01.2004 as per the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 keeping in view the judgment of this Hon'ble Page 2 of 3. Court 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 already 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 or /orders 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 his grievance has submitted representation before the Director, Elementary Education Odisha, Bhubaneswar, 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 Petitioners 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 counsel for the State 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, Page 3 of 3. the writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 09.04.2026 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-6 by passing a speaking and reasoned order by taking into account order passed in FAO No.509 of 2014. 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. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout