[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha & Another vs Biraja Choudhury & Another on 9 March, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.2099 of 2024
State of Odisha & another .... Appellants
Mr. S. B. Panda, AGA
-versus-
Biraja Choudhury & another .... Respondents
Mr. G. Sethi, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 09.03.2026
01. Appellants are knocking at the doors of this Court with the
following prayer :
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the appeal,
issue notice to the respondents, call for the records and after
hearing the parties the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash
the impugned order dated 01.11.2023 passed by the Hon'ble
Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 33988 of 2023 under Anncxure-2
and further the writ petition filed by the present Respondent
before the Hon'ble Single Judge may be dismissed being
devoid of any merit;
2. A coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 01.11.2023,
has said as under:
"1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. G.R. Sethi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and
Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.
3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging
inter alia the rejection of his claim to get the benefit of
appointment under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance
Scheme vide the impugned communication dated 01.05.2023
under Annexure-4.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the
Petitioner's father died on 13. 10.2019 and petitioner made his
application within the prescribed period of limitation. It is
further contended that since the petitioner's father died prior
to coming into force of the Amended OCS (R.A.) Rules, 2020,
his claim should have been considered as per the Rules
prevailing at the time of the death of the deceased employee in
view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Malaya Nanda Sethy vs State of Orlssa, Civil Appeal No.
4103 of 2022 disposed of on 20.05.2022
4. 1. However, it is contended that the Opp' Party No'2 placing
reliance on the Amended 2020 Rules has
rejected the petitioner's claim' It is accordingly contended that
such rejection is not sustainable in the
eye of law.
4.2. ln support of his submission, learned counsel for the
petitioner also relied on an order passed by this Court on
Og.ll.2022 so passed in W'P'(C) No'28869 of 2022. lt is
contended that in the said Writ Petition father of the petitioner
therein since had died prior to coming into force of the
Amended Rules' this Court directed for consideration of the
case in the light of the decision in the case of Malaya Nanda
Sethy (supra)' It is further contended that the order passed by
this Court on 03.11.2022 in the aforesaid Writ Petition has
been confirmed by this Court in W A' No'360 of 2023' It is
accordingly contended that claim of the petitioner is required
to be considered in the light of the decision in the case of
Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra)'
5. Mr. Samal, leamed Addl' Govt' Advocate on the other hand
contended that since the petitioner by the
time made the application, the Amended Rules had already
carne into force, no illegality has been committed by the Opp.
Party No.2 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner placing
reliance on the Amended Rules, 2020.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into
account the fact that the petitioner's father had died prior to
coming into force of the Amended Rules, 2020, this Court is of
the view that the Rules prevailing at the time of the death of the
deceased employee is required to be followed to the case of the
petitioner. Therefore, placing reliance in the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy
(supra)', this Court is inclined to quash the rejection so
available at Annexure-3. While quashing the same, this Court
remits the matter to Opp. Party No.2 to take a fresh decision
on the claim of the petitioner by following the decision in the
case of Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra)'. Such a fresh decision be
taken within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of
receipt of this order.
7. The Writ Petition is disposed of."
3. Be the above orders as they are. 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."
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submits and we
agree that his clients will be satisfied if their case is considered under
the new legal regime as reflected in the subject notification. Learned
Additional Government Advocate too agrees that the case of
Respondents 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 respondents are hereby
voided.
5. In view of the above, Appeal is disposed off. We make it clear
that in the event the matter is not decided, as undertaken before us,
within the specified period, the competent authority, who has to take
the decision, shall pay ₹1,000/- per day to each of the respondents for
delay for the first month and ₹2,000/- for the period of next following.
Now, no costs.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Bijay/Sarbani
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 11-Mar-2026 10:14:50
