[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Nrusingha Behera vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 6 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.6634 of 2026
Nrusingha Behera ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Swapnil Roy
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
06.03.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application
as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to admit the writ
petition and issue Rule "NISI" to the Opp.
Parties to show cause as to;
(i) Why the action of the Opposite Parties in
not providing compassionate appointment
to the petitioner under the Rehabilitation
Assistance Scheme after verification of the
original documents in the facts and
circumstances of the case will not be
declared as illegal; and
(ii) Why the Opposite Party No. 3 will not be
directed to provide compassionate
appointment to the petitioner under the
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme as
provided under OCS (RA) Rules, 1990
within a stipulated time;
And if the Opposite Parties do not show
cause, then the Rule be made absolute by issuing
appropriate writ/writs and any other order as
deem fit be passed;"
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the father of the Petitioner, while working as a Peon, died on harness
on 31.07.1999. He further submitted that the Petitioner was a minor
at the relevant point of time. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
further contended that the Petitioner attained the age of majority in
the year 2012, and accordingly, submitted an application for
appointment on compassionate ground under the OCS (RA) Rules,
1990.
5. The application submitted by the Petitioner on 14.08.2012 was
duly forwarded by the Opposite Party No.5 to the Opposite Party
No.3 for further consideration. After a careful scrutiny of the
application of the Petitioner the Opposite Party No.3 published a list
of all R.A. applicants. A copy of such list is annexed to the present
writ petition at Annexure-9 and in the said list the name of the
Petitioner appears at Sl. No.16. He further contended that although
the Petitioner was shortlisted, however, he has not been given
appointment in the meantime. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
further alleged the person whose name appears at Sl. No.19, has
already been given appointment in the meantime. Being aggrieved
by the inaction of the Opposite Party No.3 in giving appointment to
the Petitioner on compassionate ground under the OCS (RA) Rules,
1990, even after the name of the Petitioner was shortlisted for
appointment, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the
present writ petition.
6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Odisha v. Jita Luha decided in SLP(C) No.28521 of 2023. He also
referred to the notification of the G.A. & P.G. Department dated
04.04.2025 and submitted before this Court that all pending
applications are to be considered under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990.
In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that the Opposite Parties have committed gross illegality
in not giving appointment to the Petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, on
perusal of the documents annexed to the present writ petition it
appears that the case of the Petitioner was duly considered and his
name was shortlisted. However, he further submitted that he has no
instruction as to what happened thereafter. In such view of the
matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the Petitioner
should have approached the competent authority instead of
approaching this Court by filing the present writ petition. As such, it
was stated that the present writ petition is premature and hence the
same should be dismissed at the threshold.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their
submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the
writ petition, further taking note of the subsequent development,
particularly the letter dated 30.05.2025 at Annexure-9, this Court is
of the view that the present writ petition can very well be disposed
of at the stage of admission. While disposing of the present writ
petition this Court directs the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the
case of the Petitioner as per law and in accordance with the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jita Luha's case (supra)
as well as the notification of the G.A. & P.G. Department dated
04.04.2025. It is further directed that the case of the Petitioner shall
be considered in terms of the direction given hereinabove within a
period of two weeks. The final decision so taken be communicated
to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Digitally Signed Page 4 of 4.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 10-Mar-2026 15:30:54
