IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.16602 of 2026 Purna Chandra Sahoo ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Durgesh Narayan Rath -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - Mr. D.K.Sahoo, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 25.06.2026 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Govt. Advocate 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: “Under the above circumstance, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the Page 1 of 4. nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by directing the opposite parties, more particularly the opposite party no.2 to verify the service particulars of the petitioner at the time of verification of service particulars of other teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution, who had filed FAO No. 314 of 2019 and take a final decision in view of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in FAO No. 314 of 2019 and FAO No. 509 of 2014 under Annexures-6 and 7, which has been made confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.36256 of 2025 under Annexure-9.

And this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any further order/order or direction/ directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the present Petitioner, who stand in a similar footing with the Appellant in FAO No.509 of 2014, which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench on 19.03.2025 and eventually upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, claims similar benefits at par with the Appellant in FAO No.509 of 2014. He further contended that claiming similar benefits the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation dated 12.01.2026 at Annexure-8 to the writ petition. He further submitted that since no decision has been taken on the representation of the Petitioner. Page 2 of 4. Challenging such inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that since the issue involved in the present writ petition is release of GIA, the present writ petition is not maintainable. He further contended that in the event the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Party No.2 and her grievance is still pending before the Opposite Party No.2, he will have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to take a lawful decision on such representation within a stipulated period of time.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submissions and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court observes that the sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is the inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on her representation dated 12.01.2026 which is stated to be pending before the Opposite Party No.2 for consideration. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual scenario, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider and dispose of Page 3 of 4. the representation of the Petitioner in view of the judgments of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. It is needless to mention here that the claim of the Petitioner shall be governed by the judgment of this Court as has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further directed that the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi

Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4. Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 30-Jun-2026 19:07:24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.16602 of 2026 Purna Chandra Sahoo ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Durgesh Narayan Rath -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - Mr. D.K.Sahoo, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 25.06.2026 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Govt. Advocate 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: “Under the above circumstance, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the Page 1 of 4. nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by directing the opposite parties, more particularly the opposite party no.2 to verify the service particulars of the petitioner at the time of verification of service particulars of other teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution, who had filed FAO No. 314 of 2019 and take a final decision in view of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in FAO No. 314 of 2019 and FAO No. 509 of 2014 under Annexures-6 and 7, which has been made confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.36256 of 2025 under Annexure-9.

And this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any further order/order or direction/ directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the present Petitioner, who stand in a similar footing with the Appellant in FAO No.509 of 2014, which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench on 19.03.2025 and eventually upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, claims similar benefits at par with the Appellant in FAO No.509 of 2014. He further contended that claiming similar benefits the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation dated 12.01.2026 at Annexure-8 to the writ petition. He further submitted that since no decision has been taken on the representation of the Petitioner. Page 2 of 4. Challenging such inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that since the issue involved in the present writ petition is release of GIA, the present writ petition is not maintainable. He further contended that in the event the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Party No.2 and her grievance is still pending before the Opposite Party No.2, he will have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to take a lawful decision on such representation within a stipulated period of time.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submissions and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court observes that the sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is the inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on her representation dated 12.01.2026 which is stated to be pending before the Opposite Party No.2 for consideration. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual scenario, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider and dispose of Page 3 of 4. the representation of the Petitioner in view of the judgments of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. It is needless to mention here that the claim of the Petitioner shall be governed by the judgment of this Court as has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further directed that the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi

Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4. Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 30-Jun-2026 19:07:24