IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.10060 of 2026 Byomakesh Dash …. Petitioner Mr. S. Jena, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 08.04.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia 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 writ/writs, direction/directions, directing the State-Opposite parties to extend the benefit of leave encashment salary in favour of the present petitioner on account of his retirement which is due to his credit in terms of the Finance Department Office Memorandum dated 26.03.2015 under Annexure-2, keeping in view the ratio decided in the case of State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava reported in AIR 2013 SC- 3383 as well as similar judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Chittaranjan Senapati v. State of Odisha and another (W.P.(C) No.20808 of2024 disposed of on 06.03.2025), so also the similar judgment passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in W.P. No. 100339 of 2025 disposed of on 19.02.2025 (G. Linganagouda -v.-General Manager, Karnataka Gramina Bank) with accrued interest with 7% per annum within a reasonable time. 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. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that through highlighting his grievances, the petitioner has filed a representation vide Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition, but till date nothing has been done in the matter. In such background, he prays that a direction be issued to the Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the above noted petition within a specific time period. 5. Considering the submissions made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the above noted representation in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and communicate the result of such exercise to the petitioner. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev