Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Sanjaya Kumar Mahanty And on 10 November, 2025
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA No.2267 of 2024
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. J.K. Bal, AGA
-versus-
Sanjaya Kumar Mahanty and .... Respondents
another
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
10.11.2025
(Hybrid Mode)
Order No. I.A. No.6008 of 2024
02.
1. The appellants-State challenges the order dated 16.11.2023
passed in W.P.(C) No.36295 of 2023. The appeal has been filed
after a reported delay of 236 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 16.11.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) No. 36295 of 2023. The operative portion of the
order dated 16.11.2023 is reproduced herein:
"xxx xxx xxx
6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties and on a careful
examination of the background facts of the present case as
well as keeping in view the limited nature of grievance
involved in the present writ petition, this Court deems it
proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the
Opposite Party No.3 to consider the application of the
Petitioner under Annexure-2 to the writ petition strictly in
terms of the judgments passed by 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 of this Court in
Suchitra Bal v. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C) No.2081
of 2021 decided on 16.03.2023); Bindusagar Samantaray
v. State oof Odisha & Ors. (W.A. No.810 of 2021 decided
on 25.09.2023); and Biswajit Swain v. State of Odisha
and others (W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 disposed of on
31.10.2023), within a period of two months from the date
of communication of a certified copy of this order. The
final decision so taken on the application of the Petitioner
be also communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks
thereafter.
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 three 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-The
Superintending Engineer now upgraded as Additional Chief
Engineer, RWS&S Circle, Bhubaneswar, Dist.-Khurda obtaining
necessary acknowledgement with date and seal from the said
authority in that regard. The Superintending Engineer, RWS&S
Circle, Bhubaneswar 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
