IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.20243 of 2026 1) Jagannath Mallik ..... Petitioners 2) Arun Kumar Gochhayat Represented by Adv. -Jyoti Ranjan Khuntia -versus- 1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Director Of Elementary Education, Represented by Adv. – Odisha Mr. U.C.Jena, ASC 3) D.E.O., Balasore 4) Block Education Officer, Baliapal CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 07.07.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The Petitioners have filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be allowed; And Page 1 of 4.

(A) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued directing the opposite parties to release the salary components/grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioners with effect from the date their eligibility i.e. 01.06.2002 as per the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 instead of Block Grant with effect from 01.01.2004 as per the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 keeping in view the judgment of this Hon'ble Court rendered in the case of State of Odisha and another Vs. Ratnakar Mohapatra and another (F.A.O No.509 of 2014 disposed of on 19.03.2025 along with batch of cases) which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 25.03.2026 by dismissing several SLPs filed by the State Government, which were tagged to S.L.P (Civil) Diary No.6943 of 2026 and the differential arrears may be calculated and may be paid to the petitioners, within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court; (B) And any other order / orders or direction / directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioners.”

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that the present Petitioners, 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, claim similar benefits at par with the Appellant in FAO No.509 of 2014. He further contended that claiming similar benefits the Petitioners have already approached the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation dated 22.04.2026 at Annexure-9 to the Page 2 of 4. writ petition. He further submitted that since no decision has been taken on the representation of the Petitioner even though several months have elapsed in the meantime. Challenging such inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 the Petitioners have 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 Petitioners have approached the Opposite Party No.2 and their 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 submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court observes that the sole grievance of the Petitioners in the present writ petition is the inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on their representation dated 22.04.2026 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 Page 3 of 4. dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioners dated 22.04.2026 at Annexure-9 to the writ petition 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 Petitioners 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 Petitioners by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioners 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. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge BinayakSignature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Jul-2026 17:05:10 Page 4 of 4.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.20243 of 2026 1) Jagannath Mallik ..... Petitioners 2) Arun Kumar Gochhayat Represented by Adv. -Jyoti Ranjan Khuntia -versus- 1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Director Of Elementary Education, Represented by Adv. – Odisha Mr. U.C.Jena, ASC 3) D.E.O., Balasore 4) Block Education Officer, Baliapal CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 07.07.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The Petitioners have filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be allowed; And Page 1 of 4.

(A) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued directing the opposite parties to release the salary components/grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioners with effect from the date their eligibility i.e. 01.06.2002 as per the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 instead of Block Grant with effect from 01.01.2004 as per the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 keeping in view the judgment of this Hon'ble Court rendered in the case of State of Odisha and another Vs. Ratnakar Mohapatra and another (F.A.O No.509 of 2014 disposed of on 19.03.2025 along with batch of cases) which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 25.03.2026 by dismissing several SLPs filed by the State Government, which were tagged to S.L.P (Civil) Diary No.6943 of 2026 and the differential arrears may be calculated and may be paid to the petitioners, within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court; (B) And any other order / orders or direction / directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioners.”

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that the present Petitioners, 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, claim similar benefits at par with the Appellant in FAO No.509 of 2014. He further contended that claiming similar benefits the Petitioners have already approached the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation dated 22.04.2026 at Annexure-9 to the Page 2 of 4. writ petition. He further submitted that since no decision has been taken on the representation of the Petitioner even though several months have elapsed in the meantime. Challenging such inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 the Petitioners have 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 Petitioners have approached the Opposite Party No.2 and their 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 submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court observes that the sole grievance of the Petitioners in the present writ petition is the inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on their representation dated 22.04.2026 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 Page 3 of 4. dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioners dated 22.04.2026 at Annexure-9 to the writ petition 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 Petitioners 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 Petitioners by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioners 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. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge BinayakSignature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Jul-2026 17:05:10 Page 4 of 4.