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 appearing for the State-
Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the
documents annexed thereto.
3. By filing the present writ application the Petitioner has
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 quashing the order passed by
the opposite party no.4 vide Annexure-15 to the writ
petition.
And this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to
direct the opposite parties, more particularly the
opposite party no.4 to extend appointment order in
favour of the petitioner pursuant to the list published
under Annexure-6 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 22 the rules under Annexure-12 and issued
clarifications in this regard under Annexure-13 and
the benefit of rehabilitation appointment have
already extended the appointment orders in favour
of similarly situated employees under Annexure-14
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."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that the father of the Petitioner who was working as a Primary
School Teacher died in harness living behind his legal heirs
including the present Petitioner move on 01.03.2015. At the
time of the death of his father the Petitioner was a minor and
on attaining the age of majority, the Petitioner submitted an
application for appointment on compassionate ground on
12.01.2018. After processing his application, the Opposite
Party No.4 prepared a list of candidates who were short-listed
for appointment on compassionate ground. Such list includes
the name of the present Petitioner and the name of the
Petitioner appears at Serial No.17 of the list at Annexure-6 to
the writ application. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further
submitted that although the list was prepared in the year 2019
however the Opposite Parties did not take any steps to give
appointment to the Petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that
challenging such inaction of the Opposite Parties, the
Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)
No.27842 of 2022 which was disposed of by directing the
Opposite Parties to take a decision on the case of the Petitioner
in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Odisha vide order dated
27.10.2022. As against the aforesaid order, the State preferred
a writ appeal which was dismissed. Thereafter, against
dismissal of the writ appeal, the State preferred an SLP before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court bearing Civil Appeal No.5936 of
2025, which was considered and disposed of along with a
batch of civil appeals in the matter of State of Odisha and
others vs. Jita Luha in Civil Appeal No.5842 of 2025 and the
same was disposed of vide a common judgment dated
02.05.2025. He further contended that during the pendency of
the above noted civil appeal the State of Odisha amended the
OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 by virtue of Resolution dated
04.04.2025.
6. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that although there is a direction to regularize the
service of the present petitioner, however, the same has not
been carried out by the Opposite Parties. Being aggrieved by
such inaction of the Opposite Parties the Petitioner approached
this Court by filing the present writ application.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
contended that the case of the Petitioner was considered after
disposal of the civil appeal and on proper scrutiny it was found
that the mother of the present Petitioner who was aged about
39 years at the time of the death of her husband did not apply
for compassionate appointment. Further, referring to the
impugned rejection order at Annexure-15 dated 24.02.2026
passed by the Opposite Party No.4, learned counsel for the
State contended that the case of the Petitioner was duly
considered and same has been rejected by passing a speaking
and reasoned order. In such view of the matter, learned counsel
for the State contended that the present writ application, being
devoid of merit, should be dismissed forthwith.
8. On perusal of the impugned order dated 24.02.2026 at
Annexure-15, this Court observed that the case of the
Petitioner was considered by the Opposite Party No.4 and that
the prayer of the Petitioner has been rejected by the Opposite
Party No.4 only on the ground that the mother of the Petitioner,
who was aged about 39 years at the time of the death of the
deceased-Government employee, i.e. her husband, had not
applied for appointment on compassionate ground within the
period of limitation. Three years after the death the deceased-
Government employee, the present Petitioner submitted an
application for appointment on compassionate ground.
Accordingly, the application of the Petitioner for appointment
on compassionate grounds was rejected only on the
abovenoted ground.
9. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of
the background facts as well as the impugned order dated
24.02.2026, this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned rejection order dated 24.02.2026 is unsustainable in
law. On perusal of the record it appears that initially the case of
the Petitioner was duly considered and list of candidates was
prepared for appointment on compassionate ground. Such list
includes the name of the present Petitioner. Thus, it is
presumed that the Opposite Parties must have taken into
consideration all criteria while preparing the aforesaid list.
However, at a belated stage the application of the Petitioner
has been rejected only on the ground that the mother of the
Petitioner was available at the time of death of the deceased-
Government employee to be engaged on compassionate
ground. There is nothing on record which reveals that the
mother of the Petitioner was subjected to any kind of medical
test to find out her fitness. In the aforesaid factual backdrop,
this Court is of the view that the application of the Petitioner
for appointment on compassionate ground, despite the order
passed by this Court having been upheld by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court, has not been considered in accordance with
the rules applicable to the facts of the case. Accordingly, this
Court has no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order
dated 24.02.2026 at Annexure-15. The same is hereby set
aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite
Party No.4 to consider the application of the Petitioner strictly
in accordance with the applicable rules and the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court, within a
period of three months from the date of communication of a
copy of today's order. The final decision so taken be
communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. It is
further directed that while reconsidering the application of the
Petitioner, the Opposite Parties shall examine the condition of
the mother of the Petitioner to determine whether she was fit
after relevant point of time to discharge any official duties or
not and thereafter, take the final decision in the matter.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Sisir
Designation: Personal Assistant
