[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Chandrakanta Parhi vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 30 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9086 of 2026
Chandrakanta Parhi ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Karunakar Rath
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty,
ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
30.03.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
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 petition, the Petitioner has sought for
the following reliefs:-
"Therefore it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, call for
the record issue rule NISI calling upon opposite parties as
to why the petitioner shall not be allowed to receive the
compassionate appointment after the death of the father on
harness w.e.f. 13.06.2007. Failing to show cause or
showing insufficient cause issue the writ of mandamus
directing the Opp. Party more particularly BEO, Khaira
(Opp. Party No.4) to grant compassionate appointment
under CCS (RA) Rule, 1990.
And
Pass any order (s) / direction (s) as may deem fit and
proper."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that
the father of the Petitioner, who was working as a Government
employee, died in harness on 13.06.2007 leaving behind his legal heirs.
He further contended that the Petitioner, being the son of the deceased
Government employee and one of the legal heirs, applied for
appointment on compassionate ground under Orissa Civil Service
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990. Such application of the
Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was kept pending
before the Opposite Parties. Such inaction of the Opposite Parties
compelled the Petitioner to approach the Odisha Administrative
Tribunal by filing O.A. No.414(C)/2015. The said O.A. was disposed
of vide order dated 10.05.2017 with a direction to the Opposite Parties
to consider the application of the Petitioner under the Rehabilitation
Assistance Scheme taking into account the order at Annexure-5 to that
Original Application within a period of two months.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended
that despite such direction by the Tribunal, the Opposite Parties have
not considered the case of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the
inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner was
compelled to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. In
course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended
that the application of the Petitioner is to be considered under the OCS
(RA) Rules, 1990 as the father of the Petitioner died in the year 2007.
On such ground, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that
the Opposite Parties be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner in
terms of the aforesaid rules and to provide appointment to the
Petitioner on compassionate ground.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that
although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however on a
close scrutiny of the pleadings in the writ petition, it appears that the
case of the Petitioner has not been considered in its proper perspective
and that the application of the Petitioner is still pending before the
competent authority for consideration. In the aforesaid factual
backdrop, learned counsel for the State contended that he will have no
objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.3 to
consider the case of the Petitioner under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990
strictly in accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the
background facts, as well as the documents annexed to the writ
petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the
stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.3-District
Education Officer, Balasore to consider the case of the Petitioner under
the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 as expeditiously as possible within a period
of three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of
this order. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.3 be
also communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is
disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
