Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.22130 of 2026 Suranjan Pattanayak ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Jyoti Ranjan Khuntia -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr.S. Behera, 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 Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing 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 with effect from 01.06.2001 or with effect from the date of her 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 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 Page 2 of 3. 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 / orders or direction / directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner;” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that initially, the Petitioner, who stand in a similar footing with the Appellant in FAO No.509 of 2014, which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench on 19.03.2025 and eventually upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, claim 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 02.05.2026 at Annexure-9 to the writ petition. He further submitted 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 released 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 Page 3 of 3. 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 02.05.2026 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 dated 02.05.2026 at Annexure-9 to the writ petition 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 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. Binayak (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge