Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.20262 of 2026 Nalini Kumari Sahu ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Saroja Kanta Samal -versus- 1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Director, Directorate Of Te And Scert, Odisha 3) Director, Secondary Education, Odisha Represented by Adv. – Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 07.07.2026 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: “Therefore, in view of the above said fact and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the Opp. Parties and after hearing the parties may be Page 2 of 3. pleased to direct the Opp. Parties , more particularly the Opp. Party No.l , to sanction and release the salary of the petitioner for the period from February, 2012 till 09.04.2015 i.e., till joining as Deputy Director, Directorate of Secondary Education, Odisha and also to regularize the said period at an early date in order to enable the present petitioner to get her retiral benefit as she has retired from Govt. Service on 03.09.2023; And/ or pass such other order or direction as deems fit proper in the interest of justice;” 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Parties in many occasions by filing several representation for redressal of his grievance. In course of hearing, the learned counsel for the Petitioner refer to the representation at Annexure-14 dated 20.03.2025 filed before the O.P. No.1. He further submitted that no final decision has been taken out to the representation of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Party No.1, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter. Further referring to the writ application, the learned counsel for the State contended that there is no prove that the Petitioner had submitted any representation to the redressal his grievance before the Opposite Party No.1. in the event, The Petitioner approach the Opposite Party No.1 filed representation he has no objection to the same and direct the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner. Page 3 of 3. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the sides, on a careful examination of the background facts, further taking the nature of grievance of the Petitioner and being aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite Party No.1, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by grating liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation taking all the grounds therein along with the supporting documents in his favour within two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date filing such representation. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.1 be also communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Binayak