[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Debasish Mohanty vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 10 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.6939 of 2026
Debasish Mohanty ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Dillip Kumar Mohapatra
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
10.03.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State. Perused the writ application as well as the
prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present writ application the Petitioner has
sought for the following relief.
"Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
be graciously pleased to-
I. Admit the writ application;
II. Call for records
III. Issue a writ of Mandamus in directing the O.P.
more particularly O.P. No.3 to Issue appointment
order in favour of the petitioner in terms of the select
list dated 30.05.2025 under Annexure-10 read with
Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance)
Rules, 1990 as amended in 2025 and the judgment
law pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.A.
No.5842/2025(State of Orissa and Ors. Vrs. Jita
Luha) within a reasonable time to be stipulated by the
Hon'ble Court.
And this Hon'ble Court may pass any other
order/orders as would be deemed just and proper for
the ends of the justice;
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty
bound shall
ever pray."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that the father of the Petitioner late Bipin Bihari Mohanty who
joined as a Clerk in Gangadhar Bidya Niketan, Bhandarikuda on
01.11.1986 was discharging his duties till he died in harness on
13.05.2007. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture
contended that the school in which the father of the Petitioner was
working was taken over by the Government with effect from
07.06.1964 by virtue of an order dated 16.12.1994. He further
submitted that after the death of the deceased government
employee, the Petitioner who happens to be the son and one of the
legal heirs applied for appointment on compassionate ground,
after attaining majority, on 06.08.2012 before Opposite Party
No.3. Thereafter, the application of the Petitioner was processed
by the Opposite Parties.
5. While this was the position, on 12.03.2021 the Opposite
Party No.3 published a provisional list of candidates to be given
appointment on compassionate ground under the Rehabilitation
Assistance Scheme. In the aforesaid list the name of the Petitioner
finds place at Serial No.3.
6. He further contended that in the meantime, the Odisha Civil
Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 was amended by
the never Rules of the year 2020. In view of the new rules all
pending applications are to be considered under the provisions of
the new Rules of the year, 2020. However, the same was
challenged before this Court. This Court held that such provision
would not be applicable to the applications which were pending
prior to the new rule came into force. Such decision of this Court
was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State
of Odisha vs. Jita Luha in Civil Appeal No.5842 of 2025 as per
the judgment dated 02.05.2025 at Annexure-9 to the writ
application. While this was the position, again another provisional
list was published on 30.05.2025 by the DEO, Puri at Annexure-
10. On perusal of the list at Annexure-10 it appears that the name
of the Petitioner finds place at Serial No.3. However, the
Petitioner has not been given appointment as of now.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture alleged
that although candidates placed below the Petitioner in the
aforesaid provisional list have been given appointment, the
Opposite Parties have not taken any steps to give appointment to
the Petitioner. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the
Petitioner also referred to the notification of the Government of
Odisha, GA&PG Department dated 04.04.2025 and submitted
before this Court that the Petitioner should have been given
appointment as per the provisional list. During his argument he
also referred to the appointment orders issued to the names that
find place below the Petitioner, under Annexure-11. On such
ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner stated before this Court
that the inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties is highly
arbitrary and illegal. Accordingly, he prayed for a direction to the
Opposite Parties to issue an appointment order in favour of the
Petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended
that though he has no specific instruction in the matter, however,
taking into consideration the grievance of the Petitioner as well as
the documents annexed to the writ application and further keeping
in view the fact that the matter is still pending before the Opposite
Parties for the taking a final decision, he will have no objection,
in the event this Court directs the Opposite Parties to take a
decision in the case of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with
law, as per the applicable rules and judgments of this Court, as
well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a time bound manner.
9. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels
appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the
background facts as well as the documents annexed to the present
writ application, this Court observes that the father of the
Petitioner died in harness in the year 2007 when the Odisha Civil
Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 was in force.
Accordingly, on attaining the age of the majority the Petitioner
made an application for appointment on compassionate ground.
Such application was duly processed by the Opposite Parties and
a provisional select list was published on 30.05.2025 under
Annexure-10. Though the name of the Petitioner appears at Serial
No.3 he has not yet been given appointment. Being aggrieved by
such conduct of Opposite Parties the Petitioner has approached
this Court by filing the present writ application. In view of the
aforesaid factual background, this Court is of the view that the
Opposite Parties should have considered the case of the Petitioner
for giving appointment on compassionate ground under the OCS
(RA) Rules, 1990, in terms of the provisional list prepared by
them at Annexure-10. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court
deems it proper to dispose of the writ application by directing the
Opposite Party No.3 i.e. District Education Officer, Puri to
consider the grievance of the present Petitioner and to issue an
appointment order in terms of the provisional list at Annexure-10,
if there are no other legal impediments within a period of two
months from today.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
application stands disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Sisir
Designation: Personal Assistant
