Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.4685 of 2026 Tilottama Dash ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Kunal Kumar Swain -versus- State Of Odisha & others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 13.02.2026 Order No. 01 . 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petitioner as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petitioner has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers- “Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be allowed; And (a) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to avail the leave benefits under the Orissa Education (leave of Teachers and other members of the staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1977, retrial and pensionary benefits under the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees Retirement Benefits Page 2 of 3. Rules, 1981 and Leave salary, GPF and Retirement Benefits under the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees General provident Funds Rules, 1983, as he is the employees of an aided educational institution; And (b) any other order/orders or direction/directions may be issued So as to give complete relief to the petitioner;” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that similar matters having been disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, relief is directed to be granted vide Ritanjali Giri @ Paul v. State of Odisha and others, 2016(1) ILR-CUT-1162 and therefore, similar benefit needs to be extended to his client on principle of parity and equity. He also submits that despite his clients’ representation dated 03.09.2025, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-2, no decision is taken by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, School and Mass Education Department, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, and therefore, this Court should come to the aid of Petitioner. 5. Learned ASC appearing for the OPs initially resisted the petition stating that the representation is given only in May, 2025 and that the authorities should be given reasonable breathing period so that a decision is taken on the said representation and therefore, the petition is premature. Having so contended, now, he agrees to instruct the jurisdictional OP to look into the grievance of the Petitioner, as has been aired in the subject representation, in accordance with law, if all contentions are kept open. This is appreciable. 6. In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of. A direction issues to the jurisdictional OP to consider the representation dated 03.09.2025 at Annexure-2 in accordance with Page 3 of 3. law and inform the result of such consideration to the Petitioner within an outer limit of eight weeks. It hardly needs to be stated that such consideration should happen in the light of Coordinate Bench decision in Ritanjali Giri @ Paul’s case (supra). All the contentions are kept open. 7. It is open to the answering OPs to solicit any information or documents from the side of the Petitioner, as required for taking a decision on the subject representation. However, in that guise delay shall not be brooked. Now, no costs. Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Suchitra Designation: Junior Stenographer