IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.21317 of 2026 Sribatsha Mandoi & Anr. ..... Petitioners Represented by Adv. - Hrudananda Mohapatra -versus- State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – S.Behera, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 13.07.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid 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: “It is therefore prayed that your Lordships shall be graciously pleased enough to admit the aforesaid writ petition, issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any form of writ/writs issuing Rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties as to why direction shall not be issued to the opposite parties to fix the pay of the petitioners in the scale of pay of Rs. 1080-1800/-instead of Rs.975-1660/-from the date of their initial appointment instead of 26.10.2013 as extended vide order No.2104 dated 22.01.2026, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances. If the Opposite Parties do not show cause Page 1 of 3. or show insufficient cause the Rule NISI may be made absolute; And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs as this Hon'ble deem fit and proper.”

4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioners that although the ST & SC Development, M & BCW Department, Government of Odisha by virtue of order dated 03.09.2025 has allowed the claim of the Petitioners, however, the revision of pay has been allowed notionally w.e.f. the date of appointment, but the actual payment thereof has to be come w.e.f. 26.10.2013. The claim of the Petitioners is for actual payment w.e.f. the date of appointment. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at this juncture contended that the Petitioners want that their claim be considered by the authorities once again and they should be paid the actual revised pay w.e.f. the date of appointment. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter. On perusal of the record it appears that the Petitioners have filed the representation before the Opposite Party No.1. He further contended that in the event this Court grants liberty to the Petitioners to file a fresh representation before the Opposite Party No.1 with a further direction to the Opposite Parties to reconsider the claim of the Petitioners as has been indicated in the writ petition in accordance with law, he will have no objection to the same. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their Page 2 of 3.

submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioners to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a fresh and detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall reconsider the case of the Petitioners in terms of the Finance Department Memorandum No.21694 dated 26.06.2013 to the writ petition and the representation of the Petitioners be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioners 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 Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 3. Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-Jul-2026 11:24:53

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.21317 of 2026 Sribatsha Mandoi & Anr. ..... Petitioners Represented by Adv. - Hrudananda Mohapatra -versus- State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – S.Behera, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 13.07.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid 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: “It is therefore prayed that your Lordships shall be graciously pleased enough to admit the aforesaid writ petition, issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any form of writ/writs issuing Rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties as to why direction shall not be issued to the opposite parties to fix the pay of the petitioners in the scale of pay of Rs. 1080-1800/-instead of Rs.975-1660/-from the date of their initial appointment instead of 26.10.2013 as extended vide order No.2104 dated 22.01.2026, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances. If the Opposite Parties do not show cause Page 1 of 3. or show insufficient cause the Rule NISI may be made absolute; And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs as this Hon'ble deem fit and proper.”

4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioners that although the ST & SC Development, M & BCW Department, Government of Odisha by virtue of order dated 03.09.2025 has allowed the claim of the Petitioners, however, the revision of pay has been allowed notionally w.e.f. the date of appointment, but the actual payment thereof has to be come w.e.f. 26.10.2013. The claim of the Petitioners is for actual payment w.e.f. the date of appointment. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at this juncture contended that the Petitioners want that their claim be considered by the authorities once again and they should be paid the actual revised pay w.e.f. the date of appointment. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter. On perusal of the record it appears that the Petitioners have filed the representation before the Opposite Party No.1. He further contended that in the event this Court grants liberty to the Petitioners to file a fresh representation before the Opposite Party No.1 with a further direction to the Opposite Parties to reconsider the claim of the Petitioners as has been indicated in the writ petition in accordance with law, he will have no objection to the same. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their Page 2 of 3.

submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioners to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a fresh and detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall reconsider the case of the Petitioners in terms of the Finance Department Memorandum No.21694 dated 26.06.2013 to the writ petition and the representation of the Petitioners be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioners 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 Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 3. Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-Jul-2026 11:24:53