Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.22448 of 2026 Namita Pattanaik ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Sangram Jena -versus- State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - Smt. S.Nayak, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 21.07.2026 Order No. 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: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to:- i) Admit the writ application. ii) Call for the records. iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, directing the opposite parties, Particularly 0pp. Party Nos.l & 2 to approve/regularize the service of the Petitioner as against the 1st post of Lecturer in Page 2 of 4. Economics in Maharshi Degree College of Natural Law, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar, in the district of Khurda and to release the salary component in her favour with effect from her eligibility under the G.I.A Order 1994, keeping in view the ratio decided by this Hon'ble Court in the case of State of Odisha & another Vrs, Ratnakar Mohapatra & another (F.A.O, No.509 of 2014 & batch disposed of on 19.03.2025) which has been made confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex court in SLP(C) No.6943 of 2026 disposed of on 25.03.2026 and further the Petitioner may be extended with all other consequential, service and financial benefits as due and admissible as has been extended in favour of similarly placed employees under Annexure-5 series, by taking into consideration the principle decided by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of State of U.P and others Versus Arvind Ku. Srivastava reported in (2015) 1 SCC, Page 347, so also the judgment passed in the case of State of Karnataka & Other Vs. C. Lalitha reported in 2006(2) See-747 within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. iv) And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper for the ends of justice.” 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that being aggrieved by inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 the Director, Higher Education Odisha, Bhubaneswar in disposing of the representation of the Petitioner dated 20.04.2026 at Annexure- 4 to the writ application, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. Learned counsel for the Petitioner 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, Page 3 of 4. learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Opposite Parties are directed to consider and dispose of the grievance of the Petitioner by taking into consideration the ratio laid down in Ratnakar Mohapatra’ case (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 Petitioner, the Petitioner should have approached the learned State Education Tribunal instead of approaching this Court by filing the present writ application. She further contended that while considering the case of the Petitioner for release of the grant-in- aid, the Opposite Parities are required to test the eligibility and entitlement of the Petitioner 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 Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 in disposing his representation at Annexure-4, 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 Petitioner in accordance with law by keeping in view the ratio laid down in Ratnakar Mohapatra’s case (supra) and further verify Page 4 of 4. the entitlement and eligibility of the present Petitioner, 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 Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.2 along with a copy of today’s order. The grievance of the Petitioner shall be redressed by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Such final order be communicated to the Petitioner 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 particular with regard to eligibility and entailment of the Petitioner which shall be considered by the Opposite Party No.2 while considering the representation of the Petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ application stands disposed of. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi