Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.512 of 2026 Rabindra Kumar Behera ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. – Mr. Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. Sarbeswar Behera, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 19.01.2026 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 the learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: i) direct the Opp. Parties to grant pension and pensionary benefits by re-fixing the pay of the Petitioner retrospectively in accordance with Revised Pay Rules, 1974, 1981, 1985,1989, 1998 and 2006 in the light of the fixation of pay made in pursuance of the Orders of the Page 2 of 3. learned Tribunal & this Hon’ble Court under Annexure-5 and the benefits, as given to similarly situated persons, within a stipulated period, as may be prescribed by this Hon'ble Court for the interest of justice; ii) direct the Opp. Parties to pay the Petitioner all his arrear dues to be accrued to him, consequent upon his re-fixation of pay and pension with interest; iii) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice.” 4. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the Opposite Parties in not taking final decision with regard to the fixing of pay of the Petitioner, it is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.3 by filing a detailed representation dated 19.11.2024 at Annexure-6. Since no decision has been taken on the same, the Petitioner has compelled to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the representation of the Petitioner is of the year 2024. Moreover, there is nothing on record that the same has been accepted by the Opposite Party No.3. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that he will have no objection, in the event the Petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh representation with corresponding direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to the consider same in accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time. 6. Considering such submissions and without expressing any Page 3 of 3. opinion on the merit of the case, this Court disposes of the writ petition permitting the Petitioner to make a fresh representation taking therein all the grounds along with all the supporting documents before the Opposite Party No.3 within three weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of such representation. The final decision so taken on such representation shall be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Debasis