Mamata Bag vs State Of Odisha And
2025 Latest Caselaw 2355 Ori

Orissa High Court

Mamata Bag vs State Of Odisha And on 4 August, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                       W.P.(C) No.36631 of 2023

        Mamata Bag                       ....                   Petitioner
                                                 Mr. G.N. Sahu, Advocate


                                      -versus-
        State of Odisha and
        Others                           ....               Opposite Parties

                                                      Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA

                           CORAM:
               JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                                       ORDER

04.08.2025 Order No.

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the rejection of the petitioner's claim to get the benefit of Rehabilitation Appointment on the ground that the petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased employee and accordingly not coming within the definition of Family as provided under Rule- 2 of the OCS(R.A) Rules, 1990. It is contended that such a decision was taken relying on the provisions contained under OCS(R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020.

// 2 //

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the deceased employee died on 10.12.2005 and petitioner being the unmarried daughter of the deceased employee made her application to get the benefit on 20.05.2006 which was duly recommended vide letter dated 31.07.2010 under Annexure-4. Subsequently, though various communications were made in between the Opp. Parties and ultimately vide letter dated 18.06.2019 under Annexure-7, claim of the petitioner along with others was recommended for consideration of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, but placing reliance on the provision contained under OCS(R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020 and with the plea that, petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased employee, such claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dated 27.09.2023 under Annexure-10.

4.1. It is contended that since by the time petitioner made the application, she was unmarried and because of the delay attributed to the Opp. Parties, petitioner got married in the meantime, on the ground that petitioner is the married daughter, claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected.

4.2. It is also contended that in a recent decision of this Court in the case of Kshribadhi Bala Behera Vs. Odisha Administrative Tribunal represented

// 3 //

through its Registrar, Cuttack and Others (2023) (Supp.I) OLR-620, this Court has already held that married daughters are also eligible to get the benefit of family pension. This Court in Para 46 & 47 of Judgment in Kshirabadhi Bala Behera has held as follows:-

"46. From the factual and legal analysis, as made above, it emanates that institution of marriage is an important and basic civil right of man and woman and marriage by itself is not a disqualification and impugned policy of the State Government barring and prohibiting the consideration of the „married‟ daughter from seeking compassionate appointment merely on the ground of marriage is plainly arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees, as envisaged in Articles 14, 15, and 16(2) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the word „unmarried‟, as prescribed in Rules, 1990 and Rules, 2020 is hereby struck down being unconstitutional and ultra vires being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the of the Constitution of India.

47. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussions, the orders dated 06.05.2015 and 29.06.2015 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1063 (C) of 2015 and M.P. No.637(C) of 2015 respectively cannot be sustained in the eye of law and accordingly the same are liable to quashed and are hereby quashed. As a consequence thereof, refusal to grant benefit to the „married‟ daughter for consideration of compassionate appointment is hereby declared void and inoperative. Hence, the order impugned passed by the authority in rejecting the petitioner‟s case for compassionate appointment is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground afresh in accordance with law keeping in mind the fact that her father was died on 12.12.2010 and her application was rejected on 17.11.2014 after four years."

4.3. It is also contended that deceased employee having died on 10.12.2005 and the application being made on 20.05.2006, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy

// 4 //

v. State of Orissa, Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2022 disposed of on 20.05.2022, claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected relying on the provisions contained under OCS(R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020.

4.4. Making all these submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned rejection is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of his court.

5. Even though vide letter dated 21.11.2023, this Court directed learned Addl. Govt. Advocate to obtain instruction in the matter, but no instruction has been provided by the Opp. Parties. However, it is contended by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate that under the relevant rules, since there is no provision to extend the benefit in favour of married daughters, petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit and the same has been rightly rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that on the death of the deceased employee on 10.12.2005 as found from Annexure-1, petitioner made the application on 20.05.2006 and at the relevant point of time, she was unmarried. As further found, various communications were made in between the Opp. Parties and ultimately vide letter dated 18.06.2019 under Annexure-7, petitioner's claim was

// 5 //

recommended for her appointment under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.

6.1. But as found, claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 27.09.2023 under Annexure-10 inter alia on 2 (two) grounds that petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased employee and under OCS(R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020 there is no such provision to extend the benefit in favour of the married daughters.

6.2. Since after the death of the deceased employee on 10.12.2005, petitioner made the application on 20.05.2006 and by the said date, petitioner was unmarried and the application was made within time, it is the view of this Court that by keeping the matter pending from 2006 to 2023, by which time petitioner got married, claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the said ground. Not only that in view of the decision in the case of Kshirabadhi Bala Behera as cited (supra), it is also the settled position that, married daughters are eligible to get the benefit of rehabilitation appointment.

6.3. It is also found from the impugned order that claim of the petitioner has been rejected relying on the provisions contained under OCS(R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020. Since in the instant case after the death of the employee on 10.12.2005, petitioner made the

// 6 //

application on 20.05.2006, placing reliance on the decision in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy as cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that provisions contained under OCS(R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020 could not have been followed to the claim of the petitioner. Not only that in the meantime vide Notification dated 04.04.2025, Govt. has taken a decision to consider all such cases under the provisions contained under OCS(R.A) Rules, 1990.

6.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned rejection dated 27.09.2023 so available under Annexure-10. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to O.P. No.1 to take a fresh decision in the light of the Notification issued on 04.04.2025 and the clarification issued on 13.06.2025 by the G.A. Department within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the order with due communication to the petitioner.

7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Basudev

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack