Orissa High Court
Jayanti Nayak vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 6 May, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.11995 of 2025
Jayanti Nayak ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Biswabihari Mohanty
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Financial Advisor And Chief Represented By Adv. -
Accounts Officer,kalahandi Ms. S.Nayak, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 06.05.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with
the following prayer:
"Under the above circumstances it is humbly prayed that
this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a
writ in appropriate nature to quash the order of rejection
dated 19.02.2021 under Annexure-4 and direct the 0pp.
Parties more particularly 0pp.Party No.2 to consider the
application of the petitioner afresh for appointment under
O.C.S. Rehabilitation Assistant Rules 1990 by keeping in
view the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the matter
of Kshirabdibal Behera Vs. OAT in W.P.(c) No-14945/2015
and O.C.S. (R.A) Amendment Rules 2025 under Annexure-
5 and issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner
against a Group-D post forthwith with all service and
financial benefits.
And pass any other order/orders as would be deemed fit
and proper be issued."
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
father of the petitioner namely late Menga Chandra Nayak died
in harness on 17.04.2014 while he was working as Choukidar in
Office of the Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer,
Upper Indravati Project, Mukhiguda. He further contended that
after the death of the government employee the petitioner being
one of the legal heirs applied for appointment on compassionate
ground under the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990 in the year 2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
Opposite Parties sat over the matter for several years and finally
vide order dated 19.02.2021 the application of the petitioner was
rejected by applying the provisions of the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules,
2020. Being aggrieved by such order dated 19.02.2021 the
petitioner has approached this Court by filling the present writ
application. In course of his argument learned counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that in terms of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of
Orissa and others, reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1 and State of
West Bengal -v.- Debabrata Tiwri, reported in 2023 (3) SCALE-557
as well as the judgments by a Division Bench of this Court in
Suchitra Bal v. State of Odisha & Ors (W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021
decided on 16.03.2023) and in Bindusagar Samantaray v. State of
Odisha & Ors. (W.A. No.810 of 2021 decided on 25.09.2023,
Biswajit Swain vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.5214
of 2021 decided on 31.10.2023, the case of the petitioner should
have been considered by applying the provisions of the O.C.S.
(R.A.) Rules, 1990 as has been held by the abovenoted
judgments. He further contended that in the meantime Rule 6(9)
of the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 2020 has been amended by virtue of
the GA & PG Department notification dated 04.04.2025. In such
view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the impugned rejection order dated 19.02.2021 is
unsustainable in law.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted
that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in
rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on
compassionate ground. He further submitted that at the time
when the application was considered i.e. 19.02.2021, Rules 6(9)
of the O.C.S.(R.A.) Rules, 2020 was in force and in view of the
provisions contained in such Rule, all pending applications were
required to be considered under the new rules. Accordingly, the
represented writ application is devoid of merit and the same
should be dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
parties, on a careful examination of the backgrounds facts,
further keeping in view the admitted fact that the father of the
petitioner died on 17.04.2014 i.e. much prior to the new rule
came into force on 17.02.2020, further keeping in view the
judgment of the Supreme Court as well as this Court and the
notification of GA & PG Department notification dated
04.04.2025, this Court is of the view that the application of the
petitioner should have been considered under the O.C.S. (R.A.)
Rules, 1990. However, the Opposite Parties have committed
illegality by considering the same under the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules,
2020. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in
coming to a conclusion that the impugned rejection order dated
19.02.2021 is unsustainable in law and accordingly the same is
hereby quashed. Further the matter is remanded back to the
Opposite Party No.2 to consider the matter afresh in terms of the
judgment referred to hereinabove as well as the notification
dated 04.04.2025 within a period of three months. It is further
directed that while considering the representation of the
petitioner the Opposite Party shall also take into consideration
the judgment of this Court in Kshirabdibala Behera vs. OAT in
W.P.(C) No.14945 of 2015. The final decision so taken be
communicated to the petitioner within ten days thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands
disposed of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
