Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.6289 of 2026 Sushree Sangita Nayak ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Jyotirmay Gupta -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 26.02.2026 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 petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “The petitioner therefore, humbly prays that the Hon'ble court may be graciously pleased to allow this writ application, issue notices to the opposite parties for show- cause and further be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus/ Certiorari or any other direction(s) which will deem fit and proper to this writ application by directing the Opp. Parties particularly to O.P. No.- 2 & 3 to allow the petitioner to draw the scale of pay Page 2 of 3. having I.A./B.A., C.P. Ed. Qualification by treating it from the date of joining i.e. from 16.08.2021 and to disburse the differential arrear salary with monthly revised salary on the basis of Annexure- 5 (Series) as well as the order dated 19.02.2024 in W.P.(c) No.- 13112 of 2021 (Rajib Kumar Sahoo -v- State of Odisha & others) vide Annexure- 6 within a stipulated period with cost. AND Further be pleased to direct the Opposite Party No.- 2. i.e. Director, (ST) ST & SC Development Department to finalize the representation vide Annexure-7 within a stipulated period. AND Further be pleased to pass any other order/Direction(s) which this Hon'ble Court thinks fit and proper to this case.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the facts of this case is substantially similar to the one in W.P.(C) No.13112 of 2021 between Rajib Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha and Ors. disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.02.2024 and therefore, the same benefit should be extended to her client as well. Counsel for the Petitioner also points out the representation dated 26.07.2025 at Annexure-7, wherein a request is made for the grant of the said benefit and therefore a direction be issued to consider the subject representation in the light of Rajib Kumar Sahoo’s case (supra). 5. With this proposal, Ms.S.Nayak, learned Additional Standing Counsel, is agreeable, provided that all contentions are kept open and a reasonable period is prescribed. 6. In the above circumstances, writ petition is disposed of. Time for consideration of the subject representation and informing result of such consideration to the Petitioner in writing, is eight weeks. All Page 3 of 3. contentions are kept open. The consideration of representation to take place in the light of the decision in Rajib Kumar Sahoo, taking into consideration under Annexure-5 series. Now, no costs. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout