[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Amiya Ranjan Pani on 15 December, 2025
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA No.1695 of 2024
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. J.K. Bal, AGA
-versus-
Amiya Ranjan Pani .... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Shobhan Gupta, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
15.12.2025
(Hybrid Mode)
Order No. I.A. No.4443 of 2024
02.
1. The appellants-State challenges the order dated 19.10.2023
passed in W.P.(C) No.34372 of 2023. The appeal has been filed
after a reported delay of 214 days.
2. Having gone through the reasons stated in the application
explaining the delay in approaching this Court, we are satisfied that
adequate reasons have been shown for condonation of delay.
Otherwise it is brought to our notice that similar writ appeal has
been disposed of in view of the amendment brought in Odisha Civil
Services (Rehabilitation Assistance)Rules, 2020 in the year 2025,
by coordinate Bench.
3. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. is favoured and
disposed of.
4. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellant-State
challenging order dated 19.10.2023 by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C) No.34372 of 2023. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the order
dated 19.10.2023 is reproduced herein:
"xxx xxx xxx
4. Mr. J. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the case of the petitioner is covered by the
judgment of the apex Court in the case of Malaya Nanda
Sethy v. State of Orissa, Civil Appeal No.4103 of 2022
disposed of on 20.05.2022 and in view of the decision, the
impugned rejection is not sustainable in the eye of law.
5. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate does not
dispute the position.
6. In the above view of the matter, this Court while
disposing the writ petition quash the order at Annexure-14
and directs O.P. No.3 for reconsideration of the claim of
the petitioner in the light of the decision in the case of
Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra) and pass appropriate order
in accordance with law within a period of two (2) months
from the date of receipt of this order.
xxx xxx xxx"
5. Both the sides in all fairness submit that now vide
notification dated 4th 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 respondent submits and
we agree that his client will be satisfied if his case is considered
under the new legal regime as reflected in the subject notification.
Learned Additional Government Advocate too agrees that the case
of respondent shall be considered under the amended Rules within
an outer limit of five 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
respondent are hereby voided.
7. In view of the above, appeal is disposed of. The
respondent/writ petitioner shall submit certified copy of this order
along with all the relevant documents before the appellant no.3-
District Education Officer (DEO), Balasore obtaining necessary
acknowledgement with date and seal from the said authority in that
regard. The District Education Officer shall deal with the
representation/application of the respondent/writ petitioner by
himself or shall forward the same to the appropriate authority for
necessary action as indicated above. 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 ₹500/- to the respondent for delay per day for the
first month and ₹1,000/- for the period next following.
Now, no costs.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Radha
