[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Another vs Biswajit Nayak And Another on 16 December, 2025
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA No.2861 of 2023
State of Odisha and another .... Appellants
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. J.K. Bal, AGA
-versus-
Biswajit Nayak and another .... Respondents
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Sangram Jena, Advocate
(for Respondent No.1)
CORAM:
JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
16.12.2025
(Hybrid Mode)
Order No. 1. It is submitted by the learned Additional Government
01.
Advocate that inadvertently, Principal, Dhenkanal (Autonomous)
College, Dhenkanal-opposite party no.3 in the writ petition has
been made a respondent in the appeal. He seeks leave to carry out
the necessary correction in the cause title by mentioning
Principal, Dhenkanal (Autonomous) College, Dhenkanal as the
proforma respondent.
It is submitted that, as such, no relief is sought for against
the Principal, Dhenkanal (Autonomous) College, Dhenkanal.
2. We allow the prayer. Necessary correction be carried out in
the case brief with the signatures of the learned AGA to be
countersigned by the Court Master.
3. It is stated at the Bar by the learned AGA as well as the
learned counsel, Mr. Jena for the respondent that the matter is
covered, the matter is identical in issue as well as facts and the
questions of law and can be disposed of in terms of the order
where similar matters have been disposed of.
Accordingly, we dispose of the matter in terms of the order
passed today.
4. The appellants-State challenges the order dated 23.11.2022
passed in W.P.(C) No.28605 of 2022. The appeal has been filed
after a reported delay of 333 days.
5. 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.
6. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. is favoured and
disposed of.
7. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellants-State
challenging order dated 23.11.202 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) No.28605 of 2022. The operative portion of the
order dated 23.11.2022 is reproduced herein:
"xxx xxx xxx
5. In the above view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed
of directing the opposite parties-authority to consider the case of the
petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the apex Court in
the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra) and pass appropriate order
in accordance with law within a period of three months from the
date of production of certified copy of this order.
xxx xxx xxx"
8. 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."
9. 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.
10. 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.2-
Director, Higher Education, Odisha obtaining necessary
acknowledgement with date and seal from the said authority in that
regard. The District Education Office 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
