Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha & Others vs Radhakanta Barik .... Opposite Parties on 24 October, 2025
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 2153 of 2023
State of Odisha & Others .... Petitioners
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, AGA
-Versus-
Radhakanta Barik .... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv._
Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 24.10.2025
(Hybrid mode)
02. I.A. No.5840 of 2023
1. The appellants-State challenges the order dated
09.02.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.30900 of 2021. The appeal has
been filed after a reported delay of 167 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 09.02.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) No.30900 of 2021. The operative portion of
the order dated 09.02.2023 is reproduced herein:-
"3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to
quash the order dated 30.07.2020 under Annexure-7 and
issue direction to the opposite parties to appoint the
petitioner under the rehabilitation assistance scheme, as
per OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 and to grant all consequential
service and financial benefits within a stipulated time.
4. 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. Therefore, this writ petition may be disposed
of in the light of the aforesaid order, to which learned
State Counsel has raised no objection.
5. In the above view of the matter, the order dated
30.07.2020 passed by the authority under Annexure-7 is
hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed 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."
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.4-Civil Supplies Officer, Office of the Collector & District
Magistrate, Jajpur obtaining necessary acknowledgement with
date and seal from the said authority in that regard. The Civil
Supplies Office (appellant No.4) 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.
Narayan/Ranjeeta
