Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.21877 of 2026 Minati Senapati and others ..... Petitioners Represented by Adv. - Dr.purusottam Chuli -versus- State Of Odisha and another ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr.S.K.Jee, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 20.07.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioners have 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 5''' post of Peon of Late Adikanda Senapati w.e.f. 01.06.1993 @ l/3rd, 01.06.1995 @ 2/3rd &01.06.1997 @ full salary cost in Page 2 of 4. 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 FAG 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 Coiut may deem it fit and proper; 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that being aggrieved by inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 the Director Higher Secondary Education Odisha, Bhubaneswar in disposing of the representation of the Petitioners dated 10.06.2026 at Annexure-3 to the writ application, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ application. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that many similar matters have been disposed of in terms of order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in FAO No.509 of 2014 disposed of on 19.03.2025 in the State of Odisha and another vs. Ratnakar Mohapatra and another in (F.A.O. No.509 of 2014). In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the Opposite Parties be directed to consider and dispose of the grievance of the Petitioners by taking into consideration the ratio laid down in Ratnakar Mohapatra’ case Page 3 of 4. (supra). 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, objected to the maintainability of the present writ application on the ground that since the dispute involved in the present writ application pertains to release of grant-in-aid in favour of the present Petitioners, the Petitioners should have approached the learned State Education Tribunal instead of approaching this Court by filing the present writ application. He further contended that while considering the case of the Petitioners for release of the grant-in-aid, the Opposite Parities are required to test the eligibility and entitlement of the Petitioners as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ratnakar Mohapatra’s Case (supra). On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ application is not maintainable and that the same being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts and further taking note of the fact that the Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 in disposing their representation at Annexure-3, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioners in accordance with law by keeping in view the ratio laid down in Ratnakar Mohapatra’s case (supra) and further verify the entitlement and eligibility of the present Petitioners, to such grant-in-aid as per the judgment of this Court which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Let a final decision be taken in the matter within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Page 4 of 4. Petitioners approach the Opposite Party No.2 along with a copy of today’s order. The grievance of the Petitioners shall be redressed by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Such final order be communicated to the Petitioners within ten days from the date of taking such decision. It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, particularly, with regard to eligibility and entailment of the Petitioners which shall be considered by the Opposite Party No.2 while considering the representation of the Petitioners. 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ application stands disposed of. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Binayak (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge