IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.21439 of 2026 Kanhu Charan Darjee ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Upasika Samantaray -versus- State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – C.M. Singh, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 14.07.2026 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 for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to issue Rule Nisi Calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why:- (i) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs shall not be issued directing the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to extend the benefit of UGC scale of pay to the petitioner as made applicable to the Degree College Lecturers in Non-Govt. Aided Colleges at the revised rate from the date of his getting grant in aid i.e. from 1985 in the best interest of justice. Page 1 of 3. (ii) The Opposite Parties shall not be directed to pay the differential salary within a stipulated period as well as to extend the revision of the pension and to pay him the differential pension and pensionary benefits in the interest of justice.

And if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the said Rule be made absolute.” 4. In course of hearing of the writ application, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner ventilating his grievance wants to file a fresh representation before the State of Odisha, represented through its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Bhubaneswar, Opposite Party No.1. She further contended that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Odisha and Others vs. Swadesh Kumar Das decided in Civil Appeal No.9828 of 2024 disposed of on 29.01.2026. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that a direction be issued to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection if the representation of the Petitioner is considered by the Opposite Party No.1, which shall be filed by the Petitioner, in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

6. Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents along with a certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. In such Page 2 of 3. eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the representation of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Swadesh Kumar Das’s case (supra), and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of ten days from the date of taking such a decision. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, 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: 17-Jul-2026 14:01:26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.21439 of 2026 Kanhu Charan Darjee ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Upasika Samantaray -versus- State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – C.M. Singh, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 14.07.2026 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 for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to issue Rule Nisi Calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why:- (i) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs shall not be issued directing the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to extend the benefit of UGC scale of pay to the petitioner as made applicable to the Degree College Lecturers in Non-Govt. Aided Colleges at the revised rate from the date of his getting grant in aid i.e. from 1985 in the best interest of justice. Page 1 of 3. (ii) The Opposite Parties shall not be directed to pay the differential salary within a stipulated period as well as to extend the revision of the pension and to pay him the differential pension and pensionary benefits in the interest of justice.

And if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the said Rule be made absolute.” 4. In course of hearing of the writ application, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner ventilating his grievance wants to file a fresh representation before the State of Odisha, represented through its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Bhubaneswar, Opposite Party No.1. She further contended that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Odisha and Others vs. Swadesh Kumar Das decided in Civil Appeal No.9828 of 2024 disposed of on 29.01.2026. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that a direction be issued to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection if the representation of the Petitioner is considered by the Opposite Party No.1, which shall be filed by the Petitioner, in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

6. Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents along with a certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. In such Page 2 of 3. eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the representation of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Swadesh Kumar Das’s case (supra), and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of ten days from the date of taking such a decision. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, 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: 17-Jul-2026 14:01:26