2.5. In this intra-Court appeal the appellants raised question
of law as to whether the modalities prescribed in the RA
Rules, 1990, for consideration of application for
compassionate appointment are applicable in the
present case on the ground that on the date of
consideration of application for rehabilitation
appointment, the petitioner applied afresh in term of the
RA Rules, 2020.
3. This matter was on board on 05.08.2025 under the
heading "For Orders" for consideration of condonation of
delay. The respondent entered appearance through Mr.
Satyajit Behera, learned Advocate.
3.1. Since the matter relates to compassionate appointment
under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme for
extending succour to the family of the respondent-son,
whose father died in harness in the year 2015, while in
Government service, on the concession of counsel for the
respondent, delay in filing the writ appeal was condoned
on 05.08.2025.
3.2. It is submitted at the Bar that since writ appeal is
pending before this Court, the authority concerned is not
in a position to take up the application as directed by
the learned Single Bench for consideration. On the
consent of counsel for both the sides the merit of the
writ appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal of the
present matter at this stage in view of subsequent
developments qua amendment being carried in Rule 6(9)
of the Rules, 2020 by virtue of the Odisha Civil Services
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025.
3.3. Accordingly, heard Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the appellants and Sri Satyajit
Behera, learned Advocate representing the respondent.
4. Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the appellants submitted that the
application for compassionate appointment of the
respondent was taken up by the authority concerned in
the year 2021, when the RA Rules, 2020 was in vogue.
4.1. The authority is empowered to consider application
made as per Rule 6(9) of the Rules, 1990 as amended.
Therefore, the Order dated 31.12.2020 being in
consonance with the RA Rules, 2020 ought not to have
been interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers
under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
4.2. Beseeching indulgence of this Court, Sri Saswat Das,
learned Additional Government Advocate, insisted for
setting aside the Order passed in writ petition by learned
Single Bench and prayed to restore the Order of rejection
dated 31.12.2020 of the Divisional Forest Officer,
Ghumsur North Division-appellant No.4.
5. Sri Satyajit Behera, learned Advocate, per contra,
strenuously argued that this Court in the case of
Biswajit Swain Vrs. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C)
No.5214 of 2021 vide Judgment dated 31.10.2023
declared Rule 6(9) of the RA Rules, 2020 ultra vires. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India though issued notice in
the matter and directed to tag with SLP(C) No.28521 of
2023, no stay of operation of the Judgment dated
31.10.2023 of this Court was granted. Hence, he would
submit that no infirmity or illegality can be perceived in
the direction to appellant No.4 to consider the
application of the respondent for compassionate
appointment under the Rules, 1990, since the same was
furnished before the authority prior to the Rules, 2020
came into force.
5.1. Expanding his argument further, he urged that this
Court in the case of Suchitra Bal Vrs. State of Odisha, in
W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 & batch, disposed of on
27.06.2023 and State of Odisha and others Vrs.
Bindusagar Samantaray, in W.A. No.810 of 2021,
disposed of on 25.09.2023 having already interpreted the
application of relevant Rules, the same question cannot
fall for reconsideration. In the said cases it has been
held that the application for compassionate appointment
under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme filed under
the Rules, 1990 is to be considered as per the Rules
prevailing on the date of application, but not in terms of
the Rules, 2020. Such view of this Court finds support of
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Malaya Nanda Sethy Vrs. State of Odisha and
others, 2022 (II) OLR (SC) 1 = (2022) 4 SCR 707 = 2022
INSC 617.
5.2. It is submitted that since the father of the respondent
died in harness on 25.03.2015 and the application for
compassionate appointment was filed on 09.02.2016,
the applicable Rules for consideration is the Odisha Civil
Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990.
Because of delay in entertaining of application dated
08.02.2016 on the part of the authority concerned, the
applicable Rules to present context cannot be said to be
Rules, 2020. The approach of the Additional Chief
Engineer as reflected in Order dated 31.12.2020 is
palpably erroneous inasmuch as the subsequent Rules,
i.e., the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance)
Rules, 2020 has no impact on the fact-situation of the
present case.
5.3. Therefore, he submitted that the writ appeal, being
devoid of merit, warrants dismissal with cost.
6. Scrutiny of record reveals that there is no dispute with
regard to fact that the father of the respondent died
while he was working as Government employee on
25.03.2015 and application for consideration of
compassionate appointment under the Rules, 1990 was
submitted to the authority concerned on 09.02.2016,
and the said application was rejected by the appellant
No.4 vide Letter dated 31.12.2020 with direction to the
respondent to file a fresh application in proper format.
7. The seminal question which arises for consideration is
whether the learned Single Bench is justified in directing
the authority to consider the application of the
respondent for compassionate appointment in term of
the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance)
Rules, 1990 in the light of Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra);
Suchitra Bal (supra) and Bindusagar Samantaray (supra).
7.1. To answer this question this Court takes an excursion of
certain judgments on the point.
7.2. In the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has been pleased to observe as
follows:
7.3. In the case of State of West Bengal Vrs. Debabrata
Tiwari, (2023) 2 SCR 611, laying emphasis on the
observations made in Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed thus:
7.4. In the cases of Suchitra Bal Vrs. State of Odisha, in
W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 & batch, disposed of on
27.06.2023 this Court held as follows:
72. Having considered all these decisions, it has been
held in N.C. Santhosh Vrs. State of Karnataka:
73. Having considered N.C. Santhosh (supra) and the
law as decided by the apex court in various other
judgments including the case of the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Education (Primary) and
others Vrs. Bheemesh @ Bheemappa, 2021 SCC
Online SC 1264, the observation in Malaya Nanda
Sethy (supra) was framed. In Bheemesh @
Bheemappa (supra), it has been held that the
relevant scheme and/or the Rules prevalent at the
time of death of the employee who died in harness is
required to be considered and not under the
amended rules prevalent at the time of consideration
of the application.
74. In Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra), the decision has
been rendered on the issue whether the Odisha Civil
Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990
which we have referred as the old Rules would
apply in respect of all the applications which were
submitted prior to 17.02.2020 on which day, the
Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance)
Rules, 2020 was brought in force in total
suppression of the Odisha Civil Service
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990.
75. In Rule 6(9), all the pending cases were saved
for consideration under the new Rules, 2020.
We have reproduced the provisions of Rule 6(9)
of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation
Assistance) Rules, 2020.
76. The petitioner has challenged Rule-6(9) of the new
Rules asserting that it takes away their right to be
considered under the old Rules i.e. the Odisha Civil
Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990.
They are entitled to be considered under the old
Rules for two reasons:
77. In all the cases, the opposite parties asked for
resubmission of the application for rehabilitation
assistance in the prescribed format under the new
rules. One of the petitioners, as noted by us, had
filed such petition for consideration under the new
Rules, i.e. Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation
Assistance) Rules, 2020.
78. As discussed already, in Malaya Nanda Sethy
(supra), a two Judges Bench, having considered N.C.
Santosh (supra) and Bheemesh @ Bheemappa
(supra) has observed as follows:
80. Accordingly, the authorities were directed for
appointing the petitioner on compassionate grounds
under the 1990 Rules in terms of the original
application. It has been also observed in Malaya
Nanda Sethy (supra) that if the object and the
purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds
as envisaged under the relevant policy or the Rules
is to be achieved, then it is necessary that the
applications are considered in time and not
otherwise.
81. We have come across the cases where for nearly
about two decades, the applications made for
compassionate appointment have not been
considered. Such apathetic inaction frustrates
the very object of granting compassionate
appointment 2 on the death of an employee in
service.
2 The Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, in Rule 4 has
specified the object as follows:
84. In view of the above decision, we are of the view
that the application for the petitioners shall be
considered under the Odisha Civil Services
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 in as much
as on scrutiny, it is found that all the applications
were filed before 17.02.2020 and the delay in
considering the applications in time is entirely
attributable to the opposite parties. Such exercise
shall be completed within a period of three months
from the day when a copy of the judgment/order
condition of the family of the Government servant. Appointment of the
family member of the Government servant under these rules shall be
subject to the provisions contained in Rule 9 and can not be claimed as a
matter of right."
shall be placed before the opposite parties by the
petitioners.
85. That apart, while dealing with the applications in
which the petitioners have sought the rehabilitation
assistance/appointment against a direct payment/
Grant-in-Aid Rules at the Government aided
educational institution, the applicability of the
rehabilitation scheme in those institutions shall be
separately determined by the opposite parties on the
basis of the policy of the Government as discussed
by us. If it is found that the Odisha Civil Services
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 was
applicable on the date of death of the deceased
employee, the petitioner shall be considered for
rehabilitation assistance/appointment. So far as the
retrospective operation of the rehabilitation
assistance/appointment is concerned, this Court
cannot direct the opposite parties to give the
appointment retrospectively under the Rehabilitation
Assistance/Appointment Scheme inasmuch as it is
no more res integra, the petitioner does not have any
vested right of appointment under such
rehabilitation assistance/appointment scheme. They
are only entitled to be considered under the scheme
for that purpose.
86. Consequently, the opposite parties shall consider the
applications of the petitioners under the Odisha Civil
Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990
read with the relevant policy extending such scheme
to the Government aided educational institutions at
the relevant time of the death of the deceased
employee for the purpose of the rehabilitation
assistance/appointment within the time as
prescribed above."
7.5. In State of Odisha Vrs. Bindusagar Samantaray, W.A.
No.810 of 2021, the following observations are made by
this Court in the intra-Court appeal vide Judgment
dated 25.09.2023:
"7. At this juncture, this Court would like to add that in
Malaya Nanda Sethy Vrs. State of Odisha, 2022
SCC OnLine SC 684, the Hon‟ble apex Court in no
uncertain terms has observed that when such delay
is clearly attributable to the State or the State
instrumentalities, that cannot be used against the
person who is seeking rehabilitation assistance from
the State. In a recent judgment of a Division Bench
of this Court, the aspects of developing law including
difference of opinion in certain points have been
dealt with. In the said case being W.P.(C) No. 2081
of 2021 [Suchitra Bal Vrs. State of Odisha & others]
and batch, decided on 27.06.2023 it has been
observed as follows:
„***‟
9. It has been stated by the learned counsel for writ
petitioners-respondents that in one case, since the
mother is alive; the son‟s prayer for rehabilitation
assistance appointment was denied on that ground
that when mother is alive, no other person can be
given benefit from the family. Mr. P.K. Mishra,
learned counsel has pointed out that this Court has
already decided the said issue in Ajit Kumar Barik
Vrs. State of Odisha and others reported in 2018 (II)
OLR 10. The State had challenged the said decision
in Ajit Kumar Barik (supra), but the apex Court
declined to interfere in the decision of Ajit Kumar
Barik (supra), where this Court had an occasion to
hold that under Rule 9(7) of the Orissa Civil Service
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 „ward‟ who
is minor at the time of death of a Government
servant will not be covered under the said provision,
we are presently dealing with, due to delay and
latches on the part of the Collector in issuing the
distress certificate, after 13 years from the date
when the Registrar, Orissa Administrative Tribunal
vide his letter dated 26.12.2002 forwarded the
application for enquiry into the distress condition of
the family as required under Rule 8(1) (b) of the
Rules, the appointment letter was issued in favour of
widow of the deceased employee in the year 2016.
However, she was not fit to discharge the duties and
which fact has not been disputed by the appellants.
10. For reference, paragraph 7 of Ajit Kumar Barik
(supra) is reproduced below :
„7. Of course the first preference is to be given
wife/husband of the deceased employee then
son and unmarried daughter. However
nowhere it was stated that in the case a family
member in order of preference in the hierarchy
is unfit and a medical certificate furnished to
that effect, claim shall not be considered for
engagement of the other eligible members in
case of distress condition of the family.
Therefore, the finding given by the Tribunal in
the impugned order that since she is not
prepared to accept Group-D post and offered it
to her son in ignoring the material on records is
not sustainable.‟
The crux of the said observation is that if there is no
conflicting claim, if the family can choose whom they
would like to get the benefit under the scheme.
In our considered opinion the impugned order is
erroneous, in view of Ajit Kumar Barik (supra).
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated
17.11.2017 passed by the Odisha Administrative
Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 375(C)
of 2016 and direct the opposite party No.2 to issue
the appointment order in favour of the petitioner
within a period of two months.
11. Having appreciated the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties, we find that all these writ
appeals can be disposed of in terms of the direction
as issued in Suchitra Bal (supra), but with some
explanations in respect of certain aspects which are
not categorically dealt in Suchitra Bal (supra).
We direct the appellants to consider the case of the
petitioner-respondent under the old scheme called
Orissa Civil Services Rehabilitation Assistance Rules
1990. We make it abundantly clear that those
applications which do come within the parameters of
that scheme, will be considered for rehabilitation
appointments. However, notwithstanding the above
observation, on humane consideration and on
consideration of the distress condition, the State
Government may provide rehabilitation appointment
to the distressed families of the employees, who
died in harness but this is left in the absolute
discretion of the State Government.
So far as question relating to the aided Government
institutions or the block grant institutions is
concerned it appears that the cases of rehabilitation
will be covered by the Government policy as framed
by the General Administration & Public Grievance
Department vide their circular dated 14.10.1998, as
referred above.
So far as the objection as raised by the learned
counsel for the appellants that some of the
applications have been filed after the new Rule came
into force, in this regard, nothing more is required to
be explained. The scheme under the old Rules itself
contains the rule of limitation and hence, all
applications are to be filed within a period of one
year from the date of death. If any application is
filed even after new Rules came into force, that was
not barred by limitation if filed within one year.
But those applications are to be considered under
the old Rules. Applications filed within one year from
the date of death, have to be considered as valid.
We lay emphasis that consideration for
rehabilitation assistance has to be made on the date
of death, not on the date of consideration. In this
regard, we are governed by the law, as laid down in
Malaya Nanda Sethy Vrs. State of Odisha, 2022
SCC OnLine SC 684.
We direct the appellants to consider the cases of the
petitioner-respondents within the period of four
months from today. For that, the State shall form a
Special Committee for consideration of the cases of
the writ petitioners-respondents in order to assist
the authorities to issue the rehabilitation
appointments. We make it further clear that this
Court will not extend the stipulated time. Keeping
that in view, State Government shall expedite the
process of the formation of Committee. The cases of
rehabilitation appointments are to be considered
with empathy and hence the rigid technicalities are
not germane. Before parting with the records, we
direct the respondent-petitioners to extend all out
cooperation to the State Government so that their
appointments can be considered at earliest."
7.6. In Biswajit Swain Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.5214
of 2021 and batch, disposed of by a learned Single
Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 31.10.2023, it
has been observed as follows:
"1. *** The above noted batch of writ applications
involve an identical issue/question as to which
Rules i.e. Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation
Assistance) Rules, 1990, which was in force at the
time of death of the deceased Government employee,
or the new Rules i.e. Odisha Civil Services
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 would apply
to the facts of their cases as the common factual
background in all above noted cases is that the
deceased Government employees had died prior to
the new Rules, 2020 came into force and the
applications were also made by the petitioners-legal
heirs much prior to the new Rules, 2020 were
notified in the Gazette by the Government of Odisha.
***
40. On scrutiny of the facts of that case, it is revealed
that under the Circular dated 29.09.2014 the
dependent family member was paid a sum on
compassionate ground of Rs.1,00,000/-. Although
the said grant of Rs.1,00,000/- was subsequently
enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- by another Circular
dated 31.08.2016. However, finally the Supreme
Court in exercise of their power under Article 142 of
the Constitution of India and to do complete justice
between the parties enhanced the amount of
compensation from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-.
On a plain reading of the judgment in State of M.P.
Vrs. Amit Shrivas reported in (2020) 10 SCC 496, it
appears that the three Judge Bench has affirmed the
ratio laid down in Indian Bank‟s Case supra.
41. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Ashish Awasthi
reported in (2022) 2 SCC 157, the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court of India was dealing with a case of
compassionate appointment, wherein the father of
the applicant died on 08.10.2015 while he was
working as a work-charged employee. The question
arose as to whether the applicant, who is not
entitled to employment, would get compensation
under the circular of the year 2014 or 2016 i.e. a
subsequent circular enhancing the compensation
amount. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court referring to the
judgment in Indian Bank and Ors. Vrs. Promila and
Another reported in 2020 (2 SCC 729) (supra) and
State of M.P. Vrs. Amit Shrivas reported in (2020) 10
SCC 496 finally held that the policy/circular
prevalent at the time of the death of the Government
employee shall apply and accordingly benefits under
such scheme/policy/ circular be given to the
applicant. Although the Hon‟ble Supreme Court did
not disturb the appointment of the applicant under
the subsequent circular pursuant to the direction of
the High Court.
42. In the case of The Secretary to Govt., Department of
Education (primary) & others Vs. Bheemesh alias
Bheemappa reported in AIR 2022 SC 402, it has
once again been reiterated that the relevant Scheme
and/or the Rules prevalent at the time of time of the
death of the Government employee, who died in
harness, and/or at the time of submitting the
application is required to be considered and not the
amended Rules prevalent at the time of
consideration of the application.
43. While the above-discussed legal position was
holding the field, the learned counsel for the
petitioner cited a judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy Vrs. State of Odisha
and others reported in AIR 2022 SC 2836 : 2022 (II)
OLR (SC) 1 in support of his contention that the rule
prevalent at the time of death of the deceased
employee shall be applicable to the claim made by
the dependents/family members of the deceased
Government Employee who died in harness. On a
perusal of the judgment delivered by the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy‟s case
(supra), this court observed that the issue involved in
the said case was pertaining to a claim by a
dependent-claimant under the compassionate
appointment Orissa Rules, 1990. Further, the said
judgment, rendered by a two-Judge Bench, has
taken note of several other judgments rendered by
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on the issue of
compassionate appointment.
44. In Malaya Nanda Sethy‟s case (supra), Hon‟ble Apex
Court took note of the judgment in N.C. Santhosh
Vrs. State of Karnataka and others reported in
(2020) 7 SCC 617 which has been heavily relied
upon by the learned counsel for the State to impress
upon this Court that the Rules, 2020 is the only Rule
now in force and the same is required to be followed
in the case of the petitioner and similarly placed
other persons. Further, in Malaya Nanda Sethy‟s
case (supra) the applicability of Odisha Civil Service
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 as well as
Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance)
Rules, 2020 was directly involved. On a careful
scrutiny of the facts of the aforesaid case, it appears
that the deceased Government employee, who is the
father of the appellant-claimant, while working as an
Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the Government
Department died in harness on 02.01.2010.
Thereafter, the appellant submitted his application
for appointment as a Junior Clerk on compassionate
grounds under the OCS (R.A) Rules, 1990 in July
2010.
45. However, the said application was not considered by
the Competent Authority for a considerable period of
time. The Competent Authority, from time to time,
deferred the consideration of the appellant‟s
application for want of compliance with some of the
requirements under the rules and as a result, final
adjudication of the matter was delayed. Thereafter,
the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 was replaced by a new set
of Rules namely, OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 vide
Notification dated 17.02.2020, which provides that
the family member of a deceased Government
servant could be appointed on compassionate
grounds against Group-D level post.
46. Thereafter, the application of the appellant was
remanded to the authority for fresh consideration
under the 2020 Rules. The appellant preferred a writ
petition before this court by taking a specific stand
that the rule prevalent at the time when the
application for compassionate appointment was
made shall be applicable and not the subsequent
rules that were in force at the time of consideration
of the application for compassionate appointment.
This court after considering the contentions raised by
the parties and by relying upon the judgment of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in N.C. Santhosh‟s case
(supra) dismissed the writ petition by holding that
the claim should be considered under the new Rules
that is the Rules, 2020.
47. Finally, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
judgment of this Court, the appellant approached the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India by filing Civil Appeal
No.4103 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.
936/2020. On a careful perusal of the judgment
delivered by the Supreme Court in Malaya
Nanda Sethy's Case, this court observed that
the issue involved in the present case was
directly and substantially in issue before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda
Sethy's Case. Furthermore, in Paragraph 3 of
the judgment the issue has been crystallized by
the Supreme Court, and in Paragraph 3.1
several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
have been referred to including the judgment in
N.C. Santhos's case (supra) in Paragraph 5 of
the judgment.
***
53. Now, let us examine the issue(s) involved in the
present writ applications as well as a batch of other
similar writ applications from a legal and
Constitutional validity point of view. Both, the OCS
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 as well as
the OCS (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 are
Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India by the State of Odisha for
compassionate appointment of the family members
of a deceased Government employee died in
harness. The Rules of the year 1990 came into force
w.e.f. 24.09.1990 and the Rules of the year 2020,
which superseded 1990 Rules, came into force w.e.f.
17.02.2020 3 . Therefore, there is no doubt that the
family members of the Government employee who
died in harness after 17.02.2020 are to be governed
by the 2020 Rules for compassionate appointment.
Rule 6 Sub-rule (9) of the 2020 Rules provides that
all applications for compassionate appointment
pending as of the date on which the new set of rules
came into force shall be governed by the Rules,
2020.
54. On a comparison of the two Rules as demonstrated
by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears
that the Rules, 1990 is less cumbersome and more
beneficial to the family members of the deceased
3 Rule 1 of the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020, reads thus:
"1. Short Title and Commencement.--
(1) These rules may be called the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation
Assistance) Rules, 2020.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the
Odisha Gazette."
Said OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 promulgated under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India [vide General Administration and Public Grievance
Department Notification No.5651-GAD-SC-RAS-0029-2014/Gen], dated
17.02.2020 was published in the Extraordinary issue No.395 of the Odisha
Gazette on 27.02.2020.
Government employee. However, it is seen from the
record that many applications filed prior to
17.02.2020 were kept pending for reasons best
known to the authorities. In some cases, the
applications for appointment on compassionate
ground were kept pending for more than a decade.
Furthermore, the applications received were
scrutinized and a list of applicants was prepared by
the appointing authority/ agencies. Out of the list so
prepared, appointments were being made from time
to time by various competent authorities. In some
cases, it was found that some of the persons named
on the list were given appointments, however, some
were not so lucky. As has been stated here in
above, some applications were kept pending for
years together although those candidates were
eligible for appointment under the
scheme/Rules. Their applications were not
rejected. When the new Rule, 2020 came into
force, the authorities asked such applicants,
whose applications are pending as on that
date, to apply afresh under the provisions of
the new Rules.
55. As has been already stated, both Rules were framed
in exercise of power conferred under the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the State of
Odisha. It is too well known that the recruitment,
and service conditions of a person under the
State/Union to the public service/post are regulated
by the appropriate Legislature/ Parliament. The
power to regulate by bringing appropriate legislation
is left to the appropriate Legislature under List II
Entry 41 for the State and List I Entry 70 for the
Union under the Constitution of India. The power of
appointment belonging to the Executive shall be
governed and guided by the appropriate legislation
in that regard. The power conferred by Article 309 of
the Constitution of India is subject to other provisions
of the Constitution of India as has been reflected in
the opening words of Article 309. Therefore, it is
needless to state here that the law/rules framed
under Article 309 if contravenes any of the
provisions of the Constitution of India including the
provisions of Part III i.e. Fundamental Rights
guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, such
law/rules shall be void.
56. In the case of Rules of 1990 and 2020, the same
were framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution by the Governor of Odisha. Although
laying down the conditions of service is primarily a
duty bestowed upon the Legislatures/Parliament,
the proviso to Article 309 carves out an exception
where the President of India or the Governor of the
State, as the case may be, may notify an appropriate
rule to regulate the recruitment/ service conditions of
Government servants. Such a provision is a
transitional provision conferring power upon the
executive to frame rules having the force of law and
the same shall remain in force till the legislatures
legislate on the subject matter as has been decided
by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in A.K.
Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1998
SC 1050.
57. Furthermore, a benefit that has accrued under
the existing rules cannot be taken away by an
amendment with retrospective effect and no
statutory rule or administrative order can
whittle down or destroy any right, which has
become crystallized and no rule can be framed
under this proviso, which affects or impairs the
vested rights as has been held in the case of R.S.
Ajara Vrs. State of Gujurat reported in (1997) 3 SCC
641 and in Chairman Railway Board Vrs. C.R.
Rangadhamaiah reported in (1997) 6 SCC 623. It
has also been held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of
India in State of Karnataka Vrs. Ameerbi reported in
(2007) 11 SCC 681 that the Rules framed under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India are
not attracted in the case of appointees under a
scheme which is not of a permanent nature,
although the employees might have continued for a
long time.
57.A.Rule-6 of the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 provides for the
mode of appointment under the new Rules. Sub-rule
(1) deals with the form of the application. Sub-rule (2)
deals with marks to be awarded on evaluation.
Similarly, sub-rule (3) provides for appointment
against any vacant Group-„D‟ post. Sub-rule (5)
provides that in the event the applicant does not join,
he/she shall forfeit his/ her claim under the said
Rules and what he/she shall not be provided with
any choice. Sub-rule (6) provides that the
applications are to be considered in order of date of
death of the deceased employee. Sub-rules (7) & (8)
deals with process of evaluation. In the present
batch of writ petitions, we are concerned with sub-
rule (9) of Rule 6, which is quoted herein below:
„6. Mode of Appointment.--
***
(9) All pending cases as on the date of publication
of these rules in the Odisha Gazette shall be
dealt in accordance with the provision of these
rules.‟
The above quoted sub-rule (9) of Rule 6 of the 2020
Rules mandates that all pending applications for
compassionate appointment for whatever reasons
shall now be considered under the Rules, 2020
w.e.f. 17.02.2020. All applications involved in the
present batch of writ petitions having been
considered under the new Rules, 2020 and the same
having been rejected under the 2020 Rules, although
the Government employees in these writ petitions
having died much prior to the date 17.02.2020, the
petitioners have approached this Court by filing the
present batch of writ petitions. This Court observes
that the validity of Rule 6(9) is required to be
tested with the parameters prescribed in
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
to effectively adjudicate all the pending writ
petitions.
58. The Rules framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India may be struck down only on the
grounds that may invalidate a legislative measure.
That is when the rules so framed infringes upon the
provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India and not because the Court
considers the same to be unreasonable or that it has
been enacted with an improper motive. Needless to
say here that the constitutional mandate in Article
14 includes non-arbitrariness. Therefore, this
Court can only interfere and declare the
provisions contained in Rule 6, Sub-Rule (9) of
the 2020 Rules as void, only if the provision
violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
59. Even assuming that the Rules in question are policy
decisions of the Government or a scheme by the
State to provide benefit to the distressed family
members of the Government employees who have
died in harness, this Court would not get jurisdiction
to interfere with the same unless this Court holds
that the same is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The Govt. has full freedom to
change any policy decision and the Court shall not
interfere with the same unless such administrative
policy/ scheme violates some of the provisions of the
Constitution like Article 14, which requires that, even
the administrative authority must act fairly and treat
its employees equally as has been laid down by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Distt.
Registrar Vrs. M.B. Koyakutty reported in AIR 1979
SC 1060 and S.L. Sachdev Vrs. Union of India,
reported in AIR 1981 SC 411.
60. Thus, where the Rules/Policy/Scheme violates the
provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court
would be perfectly justified in interfering with the
Rules/Policy/Scheme and may pass suitable
directions as to how fairness or equality of treatment
could be achieved. Further, a change of policy is also
controlled by the doctrine of promissory estoppel,
however, in the context of the present case this Court
would not like to go into that aspect of the matter
and shall confine itself to violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
61. Now, reverting back to the issue of violation of Article
14 of the Constitution of India, this court need not
reiterate the guiding principles under Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. So far appointments on
compassionate grounds in the State of Odisha are
concerned, in a large number of cases that have
reached this Court it was observed that the
authorities have slept over the matter for a long time.
In some of the cases it was also observed that the
applications have been pending for more than a
decade. In some cases, it was found that while
giving appointment under the scheme to a selected
few, other applications were not even attended to for
years together and finally they were asked to submit
a fresh application under the new rules of the year
2020. The new rules, as discussed above, is a
cumbersome one and less beneficial to the family
members of the deceased Government employee.
Under the old Rules of the year 1990, the authorities
used to prepare a year-wise list of applicants and
appointments were being made out of the said list.
In many cases it was observed that appointments
were being made by adopting the pick-and-choose
method, thereby compelling this Court to intervene in
the matter repeatedly. Although the mandate of the
amendment Rules, 2016 was to consider the
applications in the order of date of death of the
deceased Government employee, however, the same
was not followed scrupulously and diligently. Thus,
the aforesaid conduct of the authorities definitely
indicates that the families of the deceased
Government employees were not treated equally and
the competent authorities have acted in an arbitrary
manner.
62. It is now a well-settled principle of law that Article
14 applies to cases of appointment, by whatever
mode, to public employment and Government jobs.
Therefore, the conduct of the authorities in
compelling the family members of the deceased
Government employees to apply afresh after an
inordinate delay, solely attributable to the appointing
authorities, that too under the new Rules of 2020,
while already giving appointments to family
members of some of the deceased Government
employees irrespective of the date of death of such
employee, in the considered view of this Court, is in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Furthermore, any rule compelling them to do so
would not stand the scrutiny of law under Article 14
of the Constitution of India. Therefore, Rule 6, sub-
rule (9) of the 2020 Rules would not pass the
test of judicial scrutiny upon the same being
tested with the touchstone of Article 14 in the
factual background of the present cases and
similar other cases pending for adjudication
before this Court. The discrimination in the
present case i.e. the family members of some of
the employees who have been given
appointment under the old Rules, 1990 in
comparison to the ones who have been asked to
apply afresh under the new Rules, 2020,
although their predecessors have died prior to
2020 Rules came into force, is an actual one
and not abstract or theoretical.
63. No doubt the appointment means an actual
appointment by posting the person concerned to a
particular post lying vacant, whereas, recruitment
means the process preceding such appointment. This
Court also observed that in certain cases the
recruitment year is the same, however, out of the
common list appointments were given to some and in
some cases the authorities slept over the matters for
years. Therefore, the principle of equality demands
that both sets of employees should have been
treated similarly. However, the authorities by asking
some of the leftover candidates to apply again under
the new rules and by compelling them to undergo the
recruitment process again as provided under the
2020 Rules, have created two different classes of
employees under the same category without having
any specific object or purpose to achieve thereby.
This is clearly hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of
India and any rule in that regard is ultra-vires the
principles enshrined in Article of the Constitution of
India. Therefore, the Rule 6, sub-rule (9) of the
Rules, 2020 is unconstitutional being hit by
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
and as such the same is unsustainable in law.
In the factual background of the present batch
of writ applications, the incorporation of Rule
6, sub-rule (9) of the Rules, 2020 may not
withstand the test of judicial scrutiny under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
64. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the
Petitioners that the Rules, 1990 was amended by
2016 amendment rules which was notified on
5.11.2016. By virtue of Rule 4 of the amending
Rules, 2016, the existing Rule 5 of the 1990 Rules
was amended to the extent that a quota of 10% was
fixed for the first time. It says "Provided that a
maximum of 10% of the total vacancies in a year
shall be earmarked to be filled up by applicants
under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme." However,
the aforesaid quota of up to 10% of the total
vacancies arising in a year was never adhered to by
the authorities thereby violating the provisions of the
Rules itself. No data whatsoever was produced
before this Court with regard to the utilization of the
aforesaid quota. Upon a careful consideration of the
said plea, this Court is of the considered view that
such contention raised by the learned counsel has
force in it.
65. Finally, this Court would like to test the State action
or a policy decision of the State Authorities with the
touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In National Highway Authority of India Vrs.
Madhukar Kumar (Civil Appeal No.11141 of 2018
decided on 23.09.2021 [(2021) 13 SCR 299 = 2021
INSC 532], the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India has
held that in India, every State action must be fair,
failing which, it will fall foul of the mandate of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, in Ajay
Hasia Vrs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi reported in AIR
1981 SC 487, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India
has held that Article 14 of the Constitution of India
strikes at arbitrariness because an action that is
arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of
equality. Whenever, therefore, there is arbitrariness
in State action, whether it be legislature or of the
executive, Article 14 immediately springs into action
and strikes down such action. Similar view has also
been taken in E.P.Royappa Vrs. State of T.N.
reported in AIR 1974 SC 555 and Maneka Gandhi
Vrs. Union of India reported in AIR 1978 SC 597.
66. The word "arbitrariness" has been defined in a
judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sharma
Transport Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh
reported in (2002) 2 SCC 188. The Hon‟ble Supreme
Court has defined arbitrariness by observing that a
party has to satisfy that action was not reasonable
and was manifestly arbitrary. The expression
"arbitrarily" means, act done in an unreasonable
manner, as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure
without adequately determining the principle, not
founded in the nature of things, non-rational, not
done or acting according to reason or judgment,
depending on the will alone. In Bombay Dyeing &
Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vrs. Bombay Environmental
Action Group reported in (2006) 3 SCC 434, the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in para 205 of the judgment,
has held that arbitrariness on the part of the
legislature so as to make the legislation violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution should ordinarily be
manifest arbitrariness.
67. In Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Assn. Vs.
Central Valuation Board reported in AIR 2007 SC
2276 and in Grand Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel and
Towers Employees and workers union Vs. Srinivasa
Resorts Ltd. reported in (2009) 5 SCC 342, the Apex
Court has observed that a law cannot be declared
ultra vires on the ground of hardship but can be
done so on the ground of total unreasonableness.
The legislation can be questioned as arbitrary and
ultra vires under Article 14. However, to declare an
Act ultra vires under Article 14, the Court must be
satisfied in respect of substantive unreasonableness
in the statute itself.
68. In A.P. Dairy Development Corpn. Federation Vs. B.
Narasimha Reddy reported in (2011) 9 SCC 286, the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that it is a settled
legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of
India strikes at the arbitrariness because an action
that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation
of equality. This doctrine of arbitrariness is not
restricted only to executive action, but also applies to
the legislature. Thus a party has to satisfy that the
action was reasonable, not done in unreasonably or
capriciously or at the pleasure without adequate
determining principle, rational and has been done
according to reason or judgment, and certainly
doesn‟t depend on the will alone. However, the
action of the legislature, violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution, should ordinarily be manifestly
arbitrary. There must be case of substantive
unreasonableness in the Statute itself for declaring
the Act ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
69. In E.P. Royappa‟s case (supra), which is a
Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court of
India, Justice Bhagawati in a concurring judgment
observed as follows:
„The basic principle which, therefore, informs both
Article 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against
discrimination. Now, what is the content and reach
of this great equalizing principle? It is a founding
faith, to use the words of Bose, J., "a way of life",
and it must not be subjected to a narrow and
pedantic and lexicographic approach. We cannot
countenance any attempt to truncate its all-
embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be
to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a
dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions
and it cannot be „cribbed‟, cabined and confined
within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a
positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to
arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are
sworn enemies; one belongs to the Rule of Law in a
republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of
an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is
implicit in it that it is unequal both according to
political logic and constitutional law and is therefore
violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter
relating to public employment, it is also violative of
Article 16. Article 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in
State action and ensure fairness and equality of
treatment.‟
70. Let us now proceed to analyze the validity of a policy
decision, the unreasonableness/ arbitrariness of
such decision and to what extent the same can be
reviewed by this Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India. In Krishnan Kakkanth Vrs.
Government of Kerala reported in (1997) 9 SCC 495,
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in para 36 of the
judgment has observed as follows:
„36. To ascertain unreasonableness and
arbitrariness in the context of Article 14 of the
Constitution, it is not necessary to enter upon
any exercise for finding out the wisdom in [sic.
the policy decision of the State Government. It
is immaterial whether a better or more
comprehensive policy decision could have] been
taken. It is equally immaterial if it can be
demonstrated policy decision of the State Govt.
It is immaterial whether a better or more
comprehensive policy decision could have been
taken. It is equally material if it can be
demonstrated that the policy decision is
unwise and is likely to defeat the purpose for
which such decision has been taken. Unless
the policy decision is demonstrably capricious
or arbitrary and not informed by any reason
whatsoever or it suffers from the vice of
discrimination or infringes any statute or
provisions of the Constitution, the policy
decision cannot be struck down. It should be
borne in mind that except for the limited
purpose of testing a public policy in the context
of illegality and unconstitutionality, courts
should avoid "embarking on uncharted ocean
of public policy".‟
In the context of public policy in public employment
two more judgments are relevant for the purpose are
(i) S.Nagaraj Vrs. State of Karnataka reported in
(1993) Supp. 4 SCC 595 and (ii) Shrilekha Vidyarthi
(Kumari) Vs. State of U.P. reported in (1991) 1 SCC
212.
71. In the present batch of writ applications, the
predecessor in interest of the applicants die in
harness much prior to the new Rule, 2020 came into
force. Although they had submitted their respective
applications in time, however, the authorities have
failed to consider their cases for appointment under
OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 (as amended in the year 2016
wherever, the same is applicable). This court further
observed that it is a matter of record that while not
considering the case of the Petitioners, the
authorities have considered and appointed persons
who had applied along with the petitioner or
subsequent to the petitioner. No reasonable
explanation is coming forth from the side of
Government-Opp. Parties as to why some persons
were shown favour by appointing them and the
petitioners and many others were not appointed.
Moreover, it has also not been satisfactorily
explained as to why the petitioners have been
asked to apply under the Rules, 2020 which is
unfavourable to them except the provision
contained in Rule 6, sub-rule (9) of the Rules,
2020. The opposite parties have thus failed to come
up with an intelligible differentia so far the class of
the present petitioners are concerned in contrast to
the persons who have been appointed under a more
favourable Rule, 1990. Such conduct on the part of
the opposite parties either rejecting the petitioners
application or asking some of them to apply afresh
under the new Rule, 2020, which is admittedly less
favourable, is definitely discriminatory and
arbitrary.
72. It would be profitable to refer to the words of S.R.
Das, J, in State of W.B. Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar
reported in 1952 SCR 284, which speaks that a
classification is reasonable when the same satisfies
the twin test of:
(i) the classification must be based on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes
persons or things that are grouped, from others
left out of the group; and
(ii) The differentia must have a rational
relationship to the object sought to be achieved
by the statute.
Das, J. further observed that there must be some
yardstick to differentiate the class included and the
others excluded from the group. The differentia used
for the classification in the scheme is the total extent
of landholding by every individual. Therefore, there
is a yardstick used for constituting the class for the
purpose of the scheme. By applying the aforesaid
test to the facts of the present batch of cases,
this court found that there exists no intelligible
differentia between the two groups i.e. the ones
who have been appointed under the old Rules,
1990 and the ones (the petitioners) whose cases
were kept pending and by operation of Rule 6(9)
of the New Rules, 2020, their cases have been
taken out of the purview of the old Rules, 1990
which was more favourable and there was a
certainty of getting the job on compassionate
ground. The background facts in both classes of
persons remains the same i.e. they are children or
dependents of deceased Government employee who
dies in harness. Since the petitioners stand in a
similar footing with the persons who have been
given appointment giving them preference over and
above the petitioner, their cases deserve to be
considered under the old Rules, 1990 i.e. the Rule
that was in force at the time of the death of the
Government employee."
7.7. The aforesaid matter in Biswajit Swain has been carried
to Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Diary No(s). 9245 of 2024. On 15.03.2024, the
following Order was passed:
"Permission to file Special Leave Petition(s) is granted.
Delay condoned.
Issue notice.
Tag with SLP (C) No. 28521 of 2023."
7.8. Coming back to the instant case, it is apparent from the
order of the learned Single Bench that on death of the
Government employee on 25.03.2015, though the
application was submitted on 09.02.2016 (within the
period stipulated under Rule 9(6) 4 of the Rules, 1990),
the Order refusing employment on compassionate
ground came to be passed. Thus, there appears delay in
taking up the application for consideration of the case of
the respondent. Due to delay in consideration by the
appellant No.4, in view of ratio of Malaya Nanda Sethy
(supra), the benefit of the RA Rules, 1990 cannot be
denied to the respondent. During pendency of
consideration of application furnished under the Rules,
1990, another set of rules, i.e., the RA Rules, 2020 came
into force. In the said Rules, sub-rule (9) of Rule 6 was
the bone of contention, wherein it has been laid down
that all pending applications were to be considered
under said new Rules. However, in Biswajit Swain
(supra), such provision has been declared as ultra vires.
4 Sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 of Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules,
1990 stood thus:
"Application for appointment under these rules shall be considered if it is received
within one year from the date of death of the Government servant."
This apart, in Suchitra Bal (supra) said provision has
been read down. Be that be.
7.9. Since no stay of operation of the Judgment in Biswajit
Swain (supra) has been granted, the effect of judgment
cannot be stated to have been ceased. The principle
decided in Biswajit Swain (supra), Bindusagar
Samantaray (supra) and Suchitra Bal (supra) therein is
applicable to the case at hand by extending deference to
the decision rendered in the context of the Odisha Civil
Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 vis-à-vis
the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance)
Rules, 2020 with particular reference to Malaya Nanda
Sethy (supra). It may be worthwhile to take note of the
following enunciation of this Court in the case of Indera
Motors Vrs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, CT
and GST, Odisha, W.P.(C) No.6382 of 2025, vide
Judgment dated 08.04.2025 (rendered by one of us,
Hon'ble the Chief Justice Shri Harish Tandon):
"Whether the High Court was within its competence to
direct the compensatory interest to be levied on the
assessee for the interregnum period between the date of
filing of the return and the judgment of the Apex Court, is
a matter to be decided by the Apex Court. Since there is
no express order of stay of operation of the said
order and the petitioner being not an applicant in
any of the special leave petitions pending before the
Supreme Court, we do not find any justification in
extending the benefit of the interim order at this
stage. Furthermore, in order to bring equilibrium between
the rights of the parties, any deposit as demanded would
subserve the justice as the same would be subject to an
outcome of the decision taken by the apex Court provided
it inure to the benefit of all the assessees whether they
approached the apex Court or not. We are conscious that
because of the confusion having created in the mind of the
several assessees on the applicability of the interim order,
we feel that an opportunity should be given to the
petitioner to deposit the said demand within two months
from today. Such deposit shall be without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the parties."
7.10. Considering the present matter in the aforesaid light, it
is quite clear, therefore, that the law declared by the
highest Court in the State is binding on authorities or
Tribunals under its superintendence, and that they
cannot ignore it either in initiating a proceeding or
deciding on the rights involved in such a proceeding.
[See, East India Commercial Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1893;
Chowhan Machinery Mart Vrs. State of Orissa, (2009) 19
VST 178 (Ori)].
7.11. As it transpires from close perusal of the record, the
appellant No.4-Divisional Forest Officer, Ghumsur North
Division, Bhanjanagar has delayed the matter in
considering application dated 09.02.2016. Taking cue
from the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra), it can safely be
said that the learned Single Bench was correct in its
approach to direct the authority to consider the case of
the respondent in terms of Suchitra Bal (supra) and
Bindusagar Samantaray (supra).
7.12. This Court is of the considered view that the Order dated
01.02.2024 of the learned Single Bench suffers no
illegality nor infirmity in law in view of principles stated
in Suchitra Bal (Supra) and Bindusagar Samantaray
(Supra).
8. This Court is taken to have a look at another angle.
8.1. At the stage of the hearing of the present matter, learned
counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this
Court subsequent event. Though the matter relating to
rendering sub-rule (9) of Rule 6 of the Odisha Civil
Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 ultra
vires has been pending before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, the Government of Odisha in General
Administration and Public Grievance Department vide
Notification dated 4th April, 2025 (published in Odisha
Gazette Extraordinary No.818, Cuttack, dated
04.04.2025) promulgated the Odisha Civil Services
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025,
relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:
"No.11771-GAD-SC-RAS-0033/2024/Gen.--
In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor
of Odisha is pleased to make the following rules
further to amend the Odisha Civil Services
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020, namely;
1. Short title and commencement.--
(1) These rules may be called the Odisha Civil Services
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their
publication in the Odisha Gazette.
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.
(b) In case the death of Government
employee occurred prior to
commencement of the Odisha Civil
Service (Rehabilitation Assistance)
Amendment Rules, 2016, shall be
dealt on the basis of distress
certificate available in the existing or
original application as per the
Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation
Assistance) Rules, 1990.
(c) 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, the appointing
authority shall ascertain the present
financial distress of the family by
calling for a report from Collector of
the district in which the family
ordinarily resides, as to whether the
family is in financial distress as per
the provisions of rule 8 of the Odisha
Civil Service (Rehabilitation
Assistance) Rules, 1990.
Explanation for the distress
certificate prescribed under clause
(c).--
The total annual family income from
all sources excluding Family pension
and temporary increase must not
exceed Rs.1,91,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh and Ninety-One Thousand) for
a family to be in a „distress
condition‟."
(ii) The sub-rule (10) shall be omitted."
8.2. In the instant case, as the date of death of the
Government employee was on 25.03.2015, i.e., on or
before commencement of the Odisha Civil Service
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2016, in
terms of proviso to clause (a) of sub-rule (9) of Rule 6 as
substituted by virtue of the Odisha Civil Services
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025, it
admits of no doubt that the application dated
09.02.2016 submitted by the respondent shall be
governed by the provisions of the Odisha Civil Service
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990.
Conclusion:
9. In the wake of exposition of legal position as put forth in
Malaya Nanda Sethy Vrs. State of Orissa and others,
2022 (II) OLR (SC) 1 = (2022) 4 SCR 707 = 2022 INSC
617; State of West Bengal Vrs. Debabrata Tiwari, (2023)
3 SCALE 557 = (2023) 2 SCR 611 = 2023 INSC 202; and
Suchitra Bal Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.2081 of
2021 & batch, disposed of on 27.06.2023 and State of
Odisha and others Vrs. Bindusagar Samantaray, W.A.
No.810 of 2021, disposed of on 25.09.2023, and in view
of the amendment of Rule 6(9) of the Odisha Civil
Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 by
virtue of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation
Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025, this Court,
therefore, does not feel it expedient to disturb of the
Order dated 01.02.2024 of the learned Single Bench
passed in W.P.(C) No.1887 of 2024.
9.1. With the Government of Odisha having taken pragmatic
approach, it needs no clarification, but to say that while
considering the application for appointment under the
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme as directed by the
learned Single Bench vide Order dated 01.02.2024 of the
passed in W.P.(C) No.1887 of 2024, the authority,
appellant No.4-Divisional Forest Officer, Ghumsur North
Division shall take into consideration the Odisha Civil
Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 as
amended by the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation
Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025 and take a decision
by adherence to the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation
Assistance) Rules, 1990.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
11. As a result of disposal of the writ appeal, all pending
interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed
of.
I agree.
(HARISH TANDON) (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Designation: Personal Assistant
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 26th August, 2025//Aswini/Laxmikant
