Dhaneswar Mahanta vs State Of Odisha & Others Opposite ... on 8 December, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           W.P.(C ) No.34369 of 2023

        Dhaneswar Mahanta                      ....                 Petitioner
                                                           Ms. P.P Rao, Adv.


                                       -versus-

        State of Odisha & Others                          Opposite Parties
                                                          Mr. S.P. Das, ASC

                            COROM:
      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

                                       ORDER

Order No                             08.12.2025
     5.  1.      This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dt.28.08.2023 so passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-11. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme was rejected.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that, Petitioner's father while working in the establishment of Tahasildar, Champua-Opp. Party No.3, he died on 27.10.2010, so available under Annexure-

2. After such death of the deceased employee, wife of the deceased employee made the application in the prescribed format to get the benefit of appointment on 25.02.2011 under Annexure-4.

4.1. It is contended that such application filed by the mother of the Petitioner was not only entertained but also processed. But pursuant to the letter issued by Opp. Party No.3 on 26.03.2012 under Annexure-B/3, Petitioner's mother made a fresh applications and on receipt of the same, not only Collector-Opp.

// 2 //

Party No.2 enquired into the matter, but also vide letter dt.27.11.2017 under Annexure-6, remitted the application to Opp. Party No.3 for taking further action in the matter.

4.2. It is contended that on the face of such letter issued under Annexure-6 on 27.11.2017, further action was not taken in providing appointment to the Petitioner's mother, as in the meantime, Petitioner's mother had already made an application on 12.04.2016 under Annexure-5, with a prayer to consider the claim of the present Petitioner for getting the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. It is contended that when no action was taken on the request made by the Petitioner's mother under Annexure-5, Petitioner moved Opp. Party No.2 on 07.09.2018 under Annexure-7 inter alia with a request to consider his claim to get the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Scheme in place of the wife of the deceased employees.

4.3. It is contended that claim of the Petitioner when was not considered, he approached this court by filing W.P.(C ) No.17672 of 2023. This Court vide order dt.22.06.2023 under Annexure- 10, directed opp. Party No.2 to take a decision on the Petitioner's claim to get the benefit under OCS(R.A.) Rules, 1990. However, such claim of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dt.28.08.2023 under Annexure-11, inter alia on the ground that Petitioner never made the application and such an application was only made on 27.08.2023, basing on the order passed in W.P.(C ) No.17672 of 2023.

4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since after the death of the deceased employee on 27.10.2010, Petitioner's mother made the application within the stipulated time period under Annexure-4 and such application was processed all through and vide letter dt.27.11.2017 under

// 3 //

Annexure-6, the matter was remitted to Opp. Party No.3 for taking further action, but no action was taken in providing appointment to the Petitioner's mother, in view of the letter issued on 12.04.2016 under Annexure-5. Vide the said letter, Petitioner's mother made a request to Opp. Party No.3 to consider the claim of the Petitioner in place of her.

4.5. It is further contended that such request made by the Petitioner's mother under Annexure-5, when was not considered, Petitioner made a representation before Opp. Party No.2 on 07.09.2018. Such application of the Petitioner when also was not considered, he approached this Court in W.P.(C ) No.17672 of 2023 and this Court vide order dt.22.06.2023 under Annexure-10, directed Opp. Party No.2 to take a decision on the petitioner's claim. But such claim of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that Petitioner made the application for the first time on 27.07.2023.

4.6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since claim made by the Petitioner's mother was never rejected on the face of the letter issued under Annexure-6 on 27.11.2017 and Petitioner made the application basing on Annexure-5 before the Collector under Annexure-7, it cannot be held that Petitioner made the application for the first time on 27.07.2023. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which claim of of the Petitioner has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. Reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha and Others Vs Jitu Luha, Civil Appeal No.5842 of 2025. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-12 (3) of the said judgment has held as follows:

(iii) On receiving the applications as mentioned above, the appropriate authority shall examine the cases of individual respondent in terms of the 2025 amended

// 4 //

rules and pass appropriate order. It is needless to say that the applications, so filed, shall not be rejected on technical grounds and shall be considered sympathetically strictly in accordance with the Rules.

5. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned order contended that on the death of the deceased employee on 27.10.2010, even though Petitioner's mother made the application on 25.02.2011, but she never submitted a fresh application in terms of letter dt.26.03.2012 under Annexure-B/3. Such a letter under Annexure-B/3 was issued, as all the documents so submitted to Opp. Party No.2, was returned back vide letter dt.22.03.2011 under Annexure-A/3.

5.1. It is contended that on the face of such letter issued under Annexure-B/3, Petitioner's mother never made fresh application and no such application was made by the present Petitioner to get the benefit in place of her mother till she approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.17672 of 2023 for the first time. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner never made the application to get the benefit and on the face of the letter issued under Annexure-B/3, Petitioner's mother never complied the request, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned rejection.

6. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel, Ms. P.P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner made further submission basing on the stand taken in the rejoinder affidavit.

6.1. It is contended that after issuance of Annexure-B/3, Petitioner's mother not only made a fresh application, but also vide letter dt.27.11.2017, Opp. Party No.2 forwarded the application so submitted by the Petitioner's mother in the prescribed format for taking appropriate action to Opp. Party

// 5 //

No.3. But on the face of such letter issued by Opp. Party No.2 on 27.11.2017 under Annexure-6, no action was taken. However, since prior to issuance of Anenxure-6, Petitioner's mother had already made an application before Opp. Party No.3 on 12.04.2016 under Annexure-5 with a request to consider the Petitioner's claim, Petitioner's mother did not take any further action in the matter. Petitioner taking into account the contents of Annexure-5 and the letter issued under Annexure-6, made a fresh application before Opp. Party No.2 on 07.09.2018 under Annexure-7 and with a prayer to consider his application to get the benefit. When the said claim of the Petitioner was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.17672 of 2023 and this Court vide order dt.22.06.2023 directed Opp. Party No.2 to consider the Petitioner's claim. It is accordingly contended that the stand taken in the impugned order that Petitioner made the application on 27.07.2023 is not acceptable and such claim of the Petitioner has been rejected on a wrong motion.

It is also contended that in view of the amendment carried to the R.A Rules vide Notification dt.4.4.2025 of the G.A & P.G. Deptt., Petitioner's claim is required to be considered in accordance with OCS(RA) Amendment Rules, 2025.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that on the death of the deceased employee on 27.10.2010, Petitioner's mother made the application to get the benefit under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on 25.02.2011 under Annexure-4. Such application submitted by the Petitioner's mother was sent back to Opp. Party No.3 vide letter dt.22.03.2011 under Annexure-A/3, Petitioner's mother was requested to make a fresh application and to provide all the documents vide letter dt.26.03.2012 under Annexure-B/3.

// 6 //

7.1. As found, after compliance of the request by the Petitioner's mother, Opp. Party No.2 vide letter dt.27.11.2017 under Annexure-6 returned back the application of the Petitioner's mother with a request to consider her appointment under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme to Opp. Party No.3. On the face of communication issued under Annexure-6, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the learned Addl. Standing counsel that no fresh application in the prescribed format was made by the Petitioner's mother. It is also found that prior to receipt of Annexure-6, Petitioner's mother had already moved an applications before Opp. Party No.3 on 12.04.2016 under Annexure-5, with a request to consider the Petitioner's claim in place of her. Such request made by the Petitioner's mother under Annexure-5, was never considered not rejected. Basing on such letter issued by the Petitioner's mother under Annexure-5, Petitioner also made an application before Opp. Party No.2 on 07.09.2018 under Annexure-7. When no decision was taken on the Petitioner's claim, he approached this Court in W.P.(C ) No.17672 of 2023. This Court disposed of the same vide order dt.22.06.2023 under Annexure-10 and with a direction on Opp. Party No.2, to consider the claim of the Petitioner. On the face of such documents available under Annexure-5,6 & 7, it cannot be said that Petitioner made the application for the first time on 27.07.2023.

7.2. Since Petitioner's mother had made the application within the prescribed time period and her claim was recommended by the Collector-Opp. Party No.2 vide letter dt.27.11.2017 under Annexure-6, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which Petitioner's claim was rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also found that claim of the Petitioner's mother was

// 7 //

never rejected at any point of time, even after communication of letter dt.27.11.2017 under Annexure-6.

7.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while quashing the impugned order dt.28.08.2023 under Annexure- 11, directs Opp. Party No.2 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner's claim in terms of the recent notification issued by the G.A & P.G Department on 04.04.2025. Such a fresh decision, as directed be taken within a period of 2 (two months from the date of receipt of the order with due communication.

7.4. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita

Reason: authenticaton of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 18-Dec-2025 11:52:16