Orissa High Court
Sangita Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 7 August, 2025
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.180 of 2025
Sangita Nayak .... Petitioner
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Jagannath Bhuyan, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, AGA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 07.08.2025
(Hybrid mode)
01. 1. The petitioner is grieving before this Court challenging the
order passed by the opposite party No.2 rejecting his application
for appointment under the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation
Assistance) Scheme.
After the rejection, it is brought to our notice by the
learned AGA that vide notification dated 04.04.2025 a suitable
amendment is effected to the provisions of Rule 2 to Odisha Civil
Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020.
2. It is further stated and agreed at the Bar that the writ
petition can be disposed of in terms of the order passed by the
Coordinate Bench dated 23.06.2025 of which one of us (M.S.
Sahoo, J.) was a Member.
3. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
23.08.2022 has said as under:
"This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Ms. B.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. S. Rath, learned Additional Standing Counsel
appearing for the State Opposite Parties.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the
order dated 06.04.2022 under Annexure-8, by which the claim
of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme as per sub-rule (2) (b) and
(9) of Rule-6 of Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation
Assistant) Rules, 2020 issued vide G.A. & P.G. Department
Notification No.5651 dated 17.02.2020 and judgment dated
26.10.2021 of this Court in W.A. No. 367 of 2021 and W.P.(C)
No. 28023 of 2021 has been rejected.
4. Ms. B.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the judgment passed by this Court in W.A. No.
367 of 2021 has been set aside by the apex Court vide judgment
reported in 2022 (II) OLR (SC) 1 (Malaya Nanda Sethy v.
State of Orissa). In the said case, this Court had refused to
extend the benefit of compassionate appointment taking into
consideration the judgments of the apex Court in the case
of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashis Awasthi, 2021 (II)
OLR (SC) 1072 and The Secretary to Govt. Department of
Education (Primary) and Ors v. Bhemesh Alias Bheemappa
(Civil Appeal No. 7752 of 2021).
5. Mr. S. Rath, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing
for Page 2 of 2 the State Opposite Parties brings to the notice
of this Court the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court wherein the said Bench
though observed that whether the application under the
rehabilitation assistant scheme must be considered in the light
of the rules prevalent on the date of death of the
Government employee or the date of examination of the
application, is pending before the Larger Bench of the
Supreme Court, but referring to the judgment of the apex
Court in the case of SBI v. Sheo Shankar Tewari, (2019) 5
SCC 600, has adjourned the matter sine die with permission
to the parties to mention it for listing after the decision of the
Supreme Court.
6. But fact remains, the decision of the apex Court in Malaya
Nanda Sethy (supra) was not placed before the Coordinate
Bench of this Court. In view of such position, till the judgment
comes in SBI v. Sheo Shankar Tewari by the Larger Bench of
the apex Court, the present judgment in Malaya Nanda Sethy
(supra) has got force to implement.
7. Issue notice to the opposite parties.
8. Two extra copies of the writ petition be served on learned
State Counsel appearing for opposite parties no.1 and 2 within
three days enabling him to obtain instructions or file counter
affidavit.
9. List after two weeks. Counter affidavit, if any, be filed in the
meantime."
4. Another coordinate Bench vide order dated 03.03.2025 said as
under :
"1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC submits that the issue involved in
this writ petition is with regard to appointment of the Petitioner
under Odisha Civil Services Rehabilitation Assistance Rules,
2020, which is sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
3. Miss Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner, however,
placing reliance on the case law in Malayananda Sethy Vs.
State of Odisha and others; 2022(II) OLR (SC)-1 submits that
application of the Petitioner was filed before coming into force
of the Rehabilitation Assistance Rules, 2020 (as amended).
Thus, the said Rules has no application to the case of the
Petitioner. Only because the application of the Petitioner was
pending on the date when Amendment Rules, 2020 came into
force. Appointment of the Petitioner should not be refused in
the guise of applicability of the said Rules, 2020 (as amended).
The Petitioner had submitted application for rehabilitation
appointment under erstwhile OCS (Rehabilitation Assistance)
Rules, 1990. It is for the time consumed by the appointing
authority such delay has occurred. Further, Miss Patnaik,
learned counsel submits that the impugned memo (Annexure-8)
was issued basing upon the judgment dated 26th October, 2021
passed in W.A. No.367 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No.28023 of 2021
(Malaya Nanda Sethy Vs. State of Odisha and others). The said
order has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid case law.
4. Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC prays for an adjournment to obtain
detailed instruction in the matter.
5. Accordingly, the matter stands adjourned to be listed on 5th
May, 2025."
5. Be the above orders as they are. Both the sides in all
fairness submit that now vide notification dated 4 th April 2025 a
suitable amendment is effected to the provisions of Rule 2 to
Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020. The
amended provision to Rule 6 of the said Rules has the following
text:
"2. In the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance)
Rules,2020 (hereinafter referred to as the "said rules"), in rule
6, (i) for sub-rule (9), the following sub-rule shall be
substituted, namely :-
"(9) (a) All pending applications, relating to death of
Government employee prior to the date of commencement of
the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules,
2020 shall be dealt in accordance with the rules prevailing on
the date of death of Government employee for appointment
under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme: Provided that in case
the death of Government employee occurred on or after
commencement of the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation
Assistance)Amendment Rules, 2016 and before commencement
of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance)Rules,
2020, shall be governed by the provisions of the Odisha Civil
Service (Rehabilitation Assistance)Rules, 1990."
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits and
we agree that his clients will be satisfied if their case is
considered under the new legal regime as reflected in the subject
notification. Learned Additional Government Advocate too
agrees that the case of petitioners shall be considered under the
amended Rules within an outer limit of three months. Both the
sides agree that all contentions need to be kept open for being
treated by the competent authority under the amended provisions
of the subject extant rules. This is fair. It hardly needs to be stated
that since the case would be considered afresh, all records that
effected rejection of claim of the petitioners are hereby voided.
7. In view of the above, petition is disposed of. We make it
clear that in the event matter is not decided as undertaken before
us within the specified period, the competent authority who has
to take the decision shall pay ₹1,000/- to each of the petitioners
for delay per day for the first month and ₹2,000/- for the period
of next following.
Now, no costs.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge.
Narayan/Ranjeeta
