Orissa High Court
Sailabala Naik vs State Of Odisha And Another on 20 July, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.21828 of 2026
Sailabala Naik ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Dr.Purusottam Chuli
-versus-
State Of Odisha and another ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr.S.K.Jee, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
20.07.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/
Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Government 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:
In view of the aforesaid circumstances it is most
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously
be pleased to admit the application, issue notice to the
opp. parties and after hearing, be pleased to direct the
opp. parties, particularly opp. party No.2-Director,
Higher Education, Department of Higher Education, to
sanction and approve grant in aid to the post of the
petitioner w.e.f. 01.06.1999 @ l/3rd, 01.06.2001 @2/3rd
& 01.06.2003 @ full salary cost in terms of the Orissa
Page 1 of 4.
(Non- Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher
Secondary Schools) Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 along
with differential arrears within a stipulated time as per
the ratio decided by this Hon’ble High Court in FAQ No.
509 of 2014 disposed of on 19.03.2025 and batch of
cases (Ratnakar Mohapatra and others versus State of
Odisha and others) as well as in terms of the judgment
dated 04.05.2015 passed by the Hon’ble State Education
Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in G.I.A Case
No.459/2012 in Kalpana Kumari Nayak Vs. State of
Odisha & Others, order dated 17.05.2018 passed by the
Hon’ble V – High Court of Orissa in F.A.Q- No.427/2015
in. State of Odisha & Others Vs. Kalpana Kumari Nayak
& Others and the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P
(C).No.27713/2018 in State of Odisha & Others Vs.
Kalpana Kumari Nayak & Others.
And may be pleased to pass any other order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem it fit
and proper;
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that being
aggrieved by inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 the Director Higher
Education Odisha, Bhubaneswar in disposing of the representation of
the Petitioners dated 10.06.2026 at Annexure-3 to the writ
application, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the
present writ application. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further
contended that many similar matters have been disposed of in terms
of order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in FAO No.509
of 2014 disposed of on 19.03.2025 in the State of Odisha and
another vs. Ratnakar Mohapatra and another in (F.A.O. No.509 of
2014). In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that the Opposite Parties be directed to consider and
dispose of the grievance of the Petitioners by taking into
consideration the ratio laid down in Ratnakar Mohapatra‘ case
Page 2 of 4.
(supra).
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, objected to
the maintainability of the present writ application on the ground that
since the dispute involved in the present writ application pertains to
release of grant-in-aid in favour of the present Petitioner, the
Petitioner should have approached the learned State Education
Tribunal instead of approaching this Court by filing the present writ
application. He further contended that while considering the case of
the Petitioners for release of the grant-in-aid, the Opposite Parities
are required to test the eligibility and entitlement of the Petitioner as
has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ratnakar
Mohapatra‘s Case (supra). On such ground, learned counsel for the
State contended that the present writ application is not maintainable
and that the same being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background
facts and further taking note of the fact that the Petitioner has
approached this Court challenging the inaction of the Opposite Party
No.2 in disposing their representation at Annexure-3, this Court
deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of
admission by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider and
dispose of the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law
by keeping in view the ratio laid down in Ratnakar Mohapatra’s
case (supra) and further verify the entitlement and eligibility of the
present Petitioner, to such grant-in-aid as per the judgment of this
Court which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Let a
final decision be taken in the matter within a period of eight weeks
from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The
Page 3 of 4.
Petitioner approach the Opposite Party No.2 along with a copy of
today’s order. The grievance of the Petitioner shall be redressed by
passing a speaking and reasoned order. Such final order be
communicated to the Petitioner within ten days from the date of
taking such decision. It is further made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, particularly, with
regard to eligibility and entailment of the Petitioner which shall be
considered by the Opposite Party No.2 while considering the
representation of the Petitioner.
7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ application
stands disposed of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Binayak
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, cuttack
Date: 23-Jul-2026 11:30:01
Page 4 of 4.
