[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Paritosh Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 15 April, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.10820 of 2026
Paritosh Pradhan ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Hrudananda Mohapatra
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. U.C.Jena, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 15.04.2026
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.
Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with
the following prayer:
"It is therefore prayed that your Lordships shall be
graciously pleased enough to admit the aforesaid writ
petition, issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any
form of writ or writs issuing Rule NISI calling upon the
Opposite Parties particularly the District Education
Officer, Angul, Opposite Party No.3 to show cause as to
why direction shall not be given to him to give
appointment to the petitioner under the Rehabilitation
Assistance Scheme as per the OCS (RA) Rule, 1990 and
OCS (RA) Amendment Rules, 2025 within a time
stipulated, considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances: if the Opp.Parties do not show cause or
shows insufficient cause, The Rule N(S) be made
absolute.
And pass any other order/orders,
direction/directions, writ/writs as this Hon'ble deem, fit
and proper."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that the father of the Petitioner namely late Purna Chandra
Pradhan, who was working as a Assistant Teacher in Pokatunga
High School, Pokatunga, died in harness on 21.03.2001 leaving
behind his legal heirs. He further contended that after the death
of the deceased government employee his wife namely Lilabati
Pradhan initially applied for appointment on compassionate
ground in the year 2001. However, such application was never
considered by the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the present
Petitioner who happens to be a son of the deceased government
employee and looking after the family submitted an application
in 2012 on attaining the age of majority. Although, such
application of the present Petitioner was considered and his
name was included in the list of candidates to be appointed on
compassionate ground, as is evident from the document from the
letter dated 20.05.2025 and list appended to Annexure-4,
however, till date the Petitioner has not been given appointment.
Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the Opposite
Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the
present writ application.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that the mother of the Petitioner initially applied for appointment
on compassionate ground immediately after the death of the
father of the Petitioner. However, such application was not
considered by the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the Petitioner
submitted an application on 02.09.2012 for giving him
appointment on compassionate ground under the O.C.S. (R.A)
Rules, 1990. Such application was kept pending for more than a
decade. Finally, the D.E.O., Angul published a list on
20.05.2025 finalising certain names and in the said list the name
of the Petitioner appears at Serial No.1. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner at this juncture contended that the Petitioner has been
enlisted and his name appeared at Serial No.1, however till date
he has not been given appointment. Being aggrieved by such
inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties to give appointment
to the Petitioner, the Petitioner has approached this Court by
filing the present writ application.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended
that although he has no specific instruction in the matter,
however taking into consideration the letter dated 20.05.2025 at
Annexure-4, the Petitioner should have approached the D.E.O.,
Angul, Opposite Party No.3 to the writ application for taking an
early action on his letter. On such ground, learned counsel for
the State contended that the present writ application is premature
and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the
background facts as well as the documents annexed to the writ
application, further taking note of the letter dated 20.05.2025 of
the Opposite Party No.3 at Annexure-4, this Court observes that
the name of the Petitioner has been shortlisted and his name
appears as against Serial No.1 of the list prepared by the
Opposite Party No.3 on 20.05.2025 at Annexure-4. Keeping in
view the aforesaid facts, this Court deems it proper to dispose of
the present writ application by directing the Opposite Party No.3
to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment on
compassionate ground by taking into consideration the list which
has already been prepared by him at Annexure-4. In the event
there are no other legal impediment, the Opposite Party No.3
shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner and proceed
further in the matter and give appointment to the Petitioner
under the O.C.S. (R.A) Rules, 1990 within a period of three
months from the date of communication of a copy of today's
order. Any development in the matter be intimated to the
Petitioner from time to time.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
