Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20763 of 2026 Ananta Mohapatra ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Dr. Purosottam Chuli -versus- State of Odisha and another ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 09.07.2026 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 documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “In view of the aforesaid circumstances it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the application, issue notice to the opp. parties and after hearing, be pleased to direct the opp. parties, particularly opp. party No.2-Director, Higher Education, Department of Higher Education, to sanction and approve grant in aid to the post of the petitioner Page 2 of 4. w.e.f. 01.06.2001 @ 1/3rd, 01.06.2003 @ 2/3rd & 01.06.2005 @ full salary cost in terms of the Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant- in-Aid Order, 1994 along with differential arrears within a stipulated time as per the ratio decided by this Hon'ble High Court in FAO No.509 of 2014 disposed of on 19.03.2025 and batch of cases (Ratnakar Mohapatra and others versus State of Odisha and others) as well as in terms of the judgment dated 04.05.2015 passed by the Hon'ble State Education Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in G.I.A Case No.459/2012 in Kalpana Kumari Nayak Vs. State of Odisha & Others, order dated 17.05.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in F.A.O. No.427/2015 in State of Odisha & Others Vs. Kalpana Kumari Nayak & Others and the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P(C).No.27713/2018 in State of Odisha & Others Vs. Kalpana Kumari Nayak & Others. And may be pleased to pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem it fit and proper.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the present Petitioner who stand in a similar footing with the Appellant in FAO No.509 of 2014, which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench on 19.03.2025 and eventually upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, claims similar benefits at par with the Appellant in FAO No.509 of 2014. He further contended that claiming similar benefits the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation dated 20.05.2026 at Annexure-3 to the writ petition. He further submitted Page 3 of 4. that since no decision has been taken on the representation of the Petitioner even though several months have elapsed in the meantime. Challenging such inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that since the issue involved in the present writ petition is release of GIA, the present writ petition is not maintainable. He further contended that in the event the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Party No.2 and his grievance is still pending before the Opposite Party No.2, he will have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to take a lawful decision on such representation within a stipulated period of time. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court observes that the sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is the inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on his representation dated 20.05.2026 which is stated to be pending before the Opposite Party No.2 for consideration. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual scenario, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner in view of the judgments of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. It is needless to mention here that the claim of the Petitioner shall be governed by the judgment of this Court as has been affirmed Page 4 of 4. by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further directed that the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis