Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.2979 of 2026 Sanjaya Kumar Das ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Niroj Kumar Mahapatra -versus- State Of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Sasmita Nayak, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 03.02.2026 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 prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit the Writ Petition issue notice to the Opp. Parties as to why this writ petition shall not be allowed. And if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, allow the writ petition with cost and appropriate writ /writs be issued to Opp. Parties with the following direction; Page 2 of 3. i) Opp. Parties be directed to allow equal pay to the petitioner form the date other similarly situated participants/principals have been allowed. ii) Opp. Parties be directed to consider the representation under Annexure-2 to fix seniority and to regularize the pay of the petitioner and to sanction/release arrear pay and allowances within a stipulated time. iii) And be pleased to pass such other order/ orders as deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner being aggrieved by wrong fixation of his pay approached the State Project Director, Odisha Adarsha Vidalaya Sangathan (OAVS) for fixation of his pay by filing a detailed representation on 29.10.2025 at Annexure-3. He further submitted that although representation is pending before the Opposite Party No.2, however, no final decision has been taken on such representation. As a result, the Petitioner is suffering a lot. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that he has no specific instruction in the matter. However, taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.2 for redressal of his grievance by filing a representation dated 29.10.2025 at Annexure-3, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the grievance of the Petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time, if the representation of the Petitioner has not been already disposed of in the meantime. Page 3 of 3. 6. Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, the writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-3 within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-3 by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.2 be also communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 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 Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer