IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.21716 of 2026 Purna Chandra Pati ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Kumar Prajwal -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 15.07.2026 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 documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioners have filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to:- i) Admit the writ application. ii) Call for the complete administrative records from the Opposite Parties regarding the petitioner’s approval. iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, commanding Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to allow and release full Grant-in-Aid under the GIA salary components instead of the Block Grant model in terms of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, Page 1 of 3. with effect from his original eligibility date, along with all consequential financial arrears and service benefits. iv) Or in an alternative direct the opp. Party No.1 to consider and dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner under annexure-7. And pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble court deem fit and proper;”

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, claims 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 07.05.2026 at Annexure-7 to the writ petition. He further submitted that since no decision has been taken on the representation of the Petitioners. 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 already approached the Opposite Party No.1 and their grievance is still pending before the Opposite Party No.1, he will have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to take a lawful decision on such representation within a stipulated period of time. Page 2 of 3.

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.1 to take a decision on their representation dated 07.05.2026 which is stated to be pending before the Opposite Party No.1 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.1 & 2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioners 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.1 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 S.K. Rout

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Page 3 of 3. Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Jul-2026 11:17:57

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.21716 of 2026 Purna Chandra Pati ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Kumar Prajwal -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 15.07.2026 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 documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioners have filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to:- i) Admit the writ application. ii) Call for the complete administrative records from the Opposite Parties regarding the petitioner’s approval. iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, commanding Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to allow and release full Grant-in-Aid under the GIA salary components instead of the Block Grant model in terms of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, Page 1 of 3. with effect from his original eligibility date, along with all consequential financial arrears and service benefits. iv) Or in an alternative direct the opp. Party No.1 to consider and dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner under annexure-7. And pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble court deem fit and proper;”

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, claims 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 07.05.2026 at Annexure-7 to the writ petition. He further submitted that since no decision has been taken on the representation of the Petitioners. 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 already approached the Opposite Party No.1 and their grievance is still pending before the Opposite Party No.1, he will have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to take a lawful decision on such representation within a stipulated period of time. Page 2 of 3.

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.1 to take a decision on their representation dated 07.05.2026 which is stated to be pending before the Opposite Party No.1 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.1 & 2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioners 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.1 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 S.K. Rout

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Page 3 of 3. Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Jul-2026 11:17:57