Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.19732 of 2026 Sanyasi Khillo ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Srikanta Mahunta -versus- 1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Director,Elementary Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar 3) District Education Officer, Koraput 4) Block Education Officer, Pattangi Represented by Adv. - Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 06.07.2026 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 documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “In view of the aforesaid fact and circumstances, this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to: i) admit the writ petition. ii) to direct the Opposite parties to regularise the petitioner's appointment w.e.f. 28.07.2008 instead of 04.07.2024 as a regular Primary School Teacher, under Elementary Education, Orissa. Page 2 of 3. iii) and further be pleased to direct the opp parties to release the financial and consequential benefit in favour of the petitioner within the stipulated time. iv) And order/orders, pass such other direction/ directions as this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that case of the Petitioner is covered by a case which was decided by this Court and confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A No.10 of 2021 decided on 02.02.2021. He further contended that the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the abovenoted writ appeal has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.13627 of 2021. He further contended that the Petitioner, who has been discharging his duties as a Ganasikhyak, has not been extended with similar benefits. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in course of hearing submitted that although he has approached the D.E.O., Koraput, Opposite Party No.3 by filing a representation at Annexure-4 to the writ application, however, no final decision has been taken on such representation. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although the Petitioner has taken an averment that he has already approached the Opposite Party No.3 by filing a representation, however, there is nothing on record to prove the fact that the Petitioner has in fact approached the Opposite Party No.3 for redressal of his grievance. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that he will have no objection if the Petitioner is granted liberty to approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the factual background as well as Page 3 of 3. materials on record, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.3 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents along with a certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to consider the representation of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law and taking into consideration the judgment relied upon by the Petitioner in support of his claim and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of ten days from the date of taking such a decision. 7. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Binayak