[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sidhartha Sankar Patra vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 16 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.7871 of 2026
Sidhartha Sankar Patra ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Durgesh Narayan Rath
-versus-
1) state of odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) director,secondary Represented by Adv. -
education,bhubaneswar Smt. S. Nayak, ASC
3) district education officer,jajpur
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
16.03.2026
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 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 dated 13.02.2026 issued by the
opposite party no.3 under 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.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-12 and issued
clarifications in this regard under Annexure-13 and the
opposite party no.3 has already extended the appointment
orders in favour of similarly situated employees under
Annexure-14 series from the list under Annexure-5.
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 who was working as a
Government High School Teacher died in harness on dated
13.03.2009 living behind his legal heirs including the present
Petitioner. 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 17.06.2013. After processing his application, the
Opposite Party No.3 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.67 of the list at Annexure-5
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.22477 of 2023 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
24.07.2023.
6. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that although there is a direction to consider his case
for appointment under compassionate ground 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
43 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 13.02.2026
passed by the Opposite Party No.3, 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 13.02.2026 at
Annexure-15, this Court observed that the case of the
Petitioner was considered by the Opposite Party No.3 and that
the prayer of the Petitioner has been rejected by the Opposite
Party No.3 only on the ground that the mother of the Petitioner,
who was aged about 43 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. Four 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
13.02.2026, this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned rejection order dated 13.02.2026 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 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 13.02.2026 at Annexure-15. The same is hereby set
aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite
Party No.3 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. While
reconsidering the application the Opposite Party No.3, DEO
shall take into consideration the medical documents at
Annexures-16 and 17 to the writ application. Further it is
directed that if possible the Opposite Party No.3 shall also send
the mother of the present Petitioner to Medical Board for
examination with regard to her fitness and on the basis of the
certificate to be provided by such Medical Board, the final
decision shall be taken in the matter.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Sisir
Designation: Personal Assistant
