[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sekhar Kumar Ghadai vs State Of Orissa And Others ..... ... on 9 February, 2026
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.32592 of 2025
Sekhar Kumar Ghadai ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Durgesh Narayan Rath
-versus-
State Of Orissa and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. S. Behera, AGA
WP(C) No.32602 of 2025
Ranabijoya Sahu ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Durgesh Narayan Rath
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Petitioners
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. S. Behera, AGA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 09.02.2026
A.K. Mohapatra, J. :
Facts of W.P.(C) No.32592 of 2025
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State. Perused the writ
application as well as the documents annexed thereto. Since both the
writ petitions involve a common question of law, both the
applications are taken up together for hearing and disposal.
3. By filing the present writ application, the Petitioners have
prayed for the following relief;
"Under the above circumstance, it is therefore
humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously
pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus
or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by
directing the opposite parties, more particularly the
opposite party no.3 to extend appointment order in favour
of the petitioner pursuant to the list published under
Annexure-5 forthwith since the matter has already been set
at rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Odisha v Jita Luha and others (Civil Appeal No. 5842 of
2025 decided on 02,05.2025) and the Government has
already framed the rules under Annexure-9 and issued
clarifications in this regard under Annexure-10 and the
District Education Officers of other districts have already
extended the appointment orders in favour of similarly
situated employees under Annexure-11 series.
And this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any further
order/order or direction/ directions as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
And for this act of kindness, as in duty bound, the
petitioner shall ever pray."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the father of the Petitioner was working in aided education institution
as against an approved post. He was appointed on 19.01.1996 while
working in the aided education institution, the father of the Petitioner
died is harness on 26.04.2012. The Petitioner being one of the legal
heirs applied for appointment on compassionate ground and the
application was filed within the period of limitation as prescribed in
the RA Rule. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that
along with his application the Petitioner has also submitted the death
certificate of his father as well as the legal heir certificate issued by
the competent authority.
5. While the matter stood thus, on 02.12.2019 the District
Education Officer, Jajpur sent a letter to the District Information
Officer, Jajpur for an inquiry with regard to the matter of appointment
of the Petitioner on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner further contended that after considering the application
submitted by similarly situated candidates for appointment on
compassionate ground, the name of the Petitioner was shortlisted for
being considered for appointment under the R.A. scheme.
6. So far as the factual background of the case is concerned, the
father of Petitioner was appointed on 20.07.1992. While working in
the aided educational institution, the father of the Petitioner died in
harness on 12.06.2017 and the death certificate and legal heirs
certificates are issued to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the District
Education officer, Jajpur vide its office order dated 02.12.2019 issued
a draft merit list for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance
scheme for approved wherein the petitioner's name finds place at
Sl.No.76.
7. While this was the position, the Petitioners being aggrieved by
the delay in giving him appointment on compassionate ground
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.15603 of 2023. A
coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.05.2023, after
hearing the argument from both sides, disposed of the application with
a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to take a decision within one
month from the date of production of a copy of the order. Since the
order dated 17.05.2023 was not carried out, the Petitioner was
compelled to file a contempt petition bearing CONTC No.10805 of
2023 which was also disposed of vide order dated 30.08.2024
granting further 15 days' time to the Opposite Party No.3 to
implement the order.
Submission of the Petitioners
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended
that vide order dated 05.12.2022, the Opposite Parties have rejected
the claim of the Petitioner illegally without applying their mind.
While assailing such rejection order, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that although the father of the Petitioner died in the year
2014, the application of the Petitioner was rejected by apply the
amended R.A. Rule for the year 2020. Being aggrieved by such
rejection, the Petitioner once again approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C) No.33953 of 2022 which was disposed of vide order dated
13.12.2022 thereby quashing the rejection letter with a further
direction to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda
Sethy vs. State of Odisha reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 684
within three months from the date of communication of a copy of the
order.
9. As against order dated 13.12.2022 the State-Opposite Parties
preferred a Writ Appeal bearing W.A. No.2206 of 2023 which was
disposed of on 27.02.2024 with the observation that the case of the
Petitioner is covered by the decision in the case of State of Odisha
and others vs. Bindusagar Samantray rendered in W.A. No.810 of
2021 disposed of on 25.09.2023 as well as the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State
of Odisha reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 684.
10. Finally the Government of Odisha issued the notification dated
04.04.2025 thereby amending Rule 6(9) of 2020 Rules. In the
meantime, a batch of SLPs were filed by the State-Opposite Parties
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the order passed by
this Court directing the Opposite Parties to consider the cases of the
legal heirs of the deceased government employees who died prior to
the amended rule came to force in the year 2020. The batch of
Petitioners was taken up for hearing along with the Civil Appeal No.
6100 of 2025 including the SLP(C) filed in the case of the present
Petitioners. Such appeals were disposed of by a common order dated
02.05.2025 in terms of the Notification dated 04.04.2025. In view of
the aforesaid legal position, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that there exists no legal impediment in giving appointment
to the Petitioner under the R.A. scheme.
11. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
also referred to letter dated 23.05.2025 at Annexure-13, he further
submitted that the department of School and Mass Education,
Government of Odisha has recommended the name of the Petitioner
for appointment on compassionate ground in a fully aided educational
institution. The list appended to Annexure-13 reveals that the name of
the Petitioner, namely, Tapaswini Mohakud, appears at Sl. No.8 and
similarly the name of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 30659 of 2025,
Krupasindu Giri, appears at Sl. No.10. Referring to the aforesaid letter
at Annexure-13, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there
exists no legal impediments to give appointment to the present
Petitioners. It was also contended that there are lot of vacancies as
against which the Petitioner can very well be given appointment.
However, the Opposite Parties are sitting over the matter despite
orders being passed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the Opposite
Parties to give appointment to the Petitioners on compassionate
ground, despite their names having been recommended by the
Government, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the
present writ application.
State's case
12. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
no specific counter affidavit is required as facts are not disputed.
Furthermore, taking into consideration the fact that the case of the
Petitioners is governed by the Notification dated 04.04.2025 and that
the names of the Petitioners have been recommended by the
department of higher education vide letter dated 23.05.2025 at
Annexure-13, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs
the Opposite Party to consider the case of the Petitioner for
appointment on compassionate ground as has been indicated in the
letter at Annexure-13 to the writ application subject to availability
vacancy in posts.
Analysis and Conclusion
13. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination
of the background facts and further taking into consideration the fact
that the cases of the Petitioners are squarely covered by the
notification of the Government dated 04.04.2025 and the fact that
their names have already been recommended by the District
Education Officer, Jajpur vide letter dated 02.12.2019, this Court
deems it proper to dispose of the writ application, by directing the
Opposite Parties to take up immediate necessary follow-up steps to
give appointment to the Petitioners as against the vacant posts, by
taking into consideration the recommendation of the DEO, Jajpur
dated 02.12.2019, within a period of two months. The Petitioners shall
be appointed within the aforesaid time stipulation subject to
availability of the vacancy.
14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, both the writ
application stands disposed of.
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 9th February, 2026/S. K. Sethi, P.A..
Designation: Personal Assistant
