Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.4218 of 2026 Dr. Sanjib Kumar Mohanty ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Dr. Binoda Kumar Mishra -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S. Behera, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 24.03.2026 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned 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, prayed that this Hon'ble Court would be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the records and issue RULE NISI calling upon the Opposite parties to show cause as to why: i.) Clause-14 of Annexure-8 shall not be Page 2 of 3. quashed being discriminatory; ii) The notional fixation shall not be translated to actual payment of the revised UGC Scale of Pay including the arrear; and if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, this Hon'ble Court may issue writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the notional fixation and further translate the same to actual fixation by issuance of a writ of Mandamus; and further this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any other writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders, which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper and the aforesaid Rule may be made absolute;” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Madan Mohan Mahala and others v. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.25509 of 2022 decided on 24.10.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on instruction, submitted that the case of the Petitioner is covered by the ratio with the aforesaid judgment. However, the same shall only be applicable subject to verification of necessary factual backgrounds of the Petitioner’s case. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, the present application is disposed of in terms of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in Dr. Page 3 of 3. Madan Mohan Mahala’s case (supra). 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout