Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa). In the said case, this Court had refused to extend t
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W. A. No. 434 of 2024 Director of Higher Education, Odisha and another …. Appellant Kedar Gouda and another Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, Additional Government Advocate -versus-
Legal Reasoning
…. Respondents Mr. P.K. Bhuyan, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
Decision
ORDER 29.07.2025 Order No. 01. 1. Appellants who are authorities of the State are knocking at the doors of this Court with the following prayer : “…set aside the impugned order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No.6946 of 2023 and further, to pass appropriate orders to allow this appeal.” A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2. 23.08.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.15193 of 2022 has said as under : “This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Ms. B.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Rath, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State Opposite Parties. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 06.04.2022 under Annexure-8, by which for compassionate appointment under Rehabilitation the claim of the petitioner Page 1 of 5 Assistance Scheme as per sub-rule (2) (b) and (9) of Rule-6 of Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistant) Rules, 2020 issued vide G.A. & P.G. Department Notification No.5651 dated 17.02.2020 and judgment dated 26.10.2021 of this Court in W.A. No. 367 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No. 28023 of 2021 has been rejected. 4. Ms. B.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the judgment passed by this Court in W.A. No. 367 of 2021 has been set aside by the apex Court vide judgment reported in 2022 (II) OLR (SC) 1 (Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa). In the said case, this Court had refused to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment taking into consideration the judgments of the apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashis Awasthi, 2021 (II) OLR (SC) 1072 and The Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) and Ors v. Bhemesh Alias Bheemappa (Civil Appeal No. 7752 of 2021). 5. Mr. S. Rath, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for Page 2 of 2 the State Opposite Parties brings to the notice of this Court the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court wherein the said Bench though observed that whether the application under the rehabilitation assistant scheme must be considered in the light of the the rules prevalent on Government employee or the date of examination of the application, is pending before the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court, but referring to the judgment of the apex Court in the case of SBI v. Sheo Shankar Tewari, (2019) 5 SCC 600, has adjourned the matter sine die with permission to the parties to mention it for listing after the decision of the Supreme Court. the date of death of 6. But fact remains, the decision of the apex Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra) was not placed before the Coordinate Bench of this Court. In view of such position, till the judgment comes in SBI v. Sheo Page 2 of 5 Shankar Tewari by the Larger Bench of the apex Court, the present judgment in Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra) has got force to implement. 7. Issue notice to the opposite parties. 8. Two extra copies of the writ petition be served on learned State Counsel appearing for opposite parties no.1 and 2 within three days enabling him to obtain instructions or file counter affidavit. 9. List after two weeks. Counter affidavit, if any, be filed in the meantime.” Another coordinate Bench vide order dated 03.03.2025 3. passed in W.P.(C) No.15193 of 2022 has said as under : “1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. law the case 2. Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is with regard to appointment of the Petitioner under Odisha Civil Services Rehabilitation Assistance Rules, 2020, which is sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. Miss Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, placing reliance on in Malayananda Sethy Vs. State of Odisha and others; 2022 (II) OLR (SC)-1 submits that application of the Petitioner was filed before coming into force of the Rehabilitation Assistance Rules, 2020 (as amended). Thus, the said Rules has no application to the case of the Petitioner. Only because the application of the Petitioner was pending on the date when Amendment Rules, 2020 came into force. Appointment of the Petitioner should not be refused in the guise of applicability of the said Rules, 2020 (as amended). The Petitioner had submitted application for rehabilitation appointment under erstwhile OCS (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990. It is for the time consumed by the appointing authority such delay has occurred. Further, Miss Pattnaik, learned counsel submits that the impugned memo (Annexure-8) was issued basing Page 3 of 5 upon the judgment dated 26th October, 2021 passed in W.A. No.367 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No.28023 of 2021 (Malaya Nanda Sethy Vs. State of Odisha and others). The said order has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case law. 4. Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC prays for an adjournment to obtain detailed instruction in the matter. 5. Accordingly, the matter stands adjourned to be listed on 5th May, 2025.” Be the above orders as they are. Both the sides in all 4. 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 :— to employee prior "(9) (a) All pending applications, relating to death of Government the date of the Odisha Civil Services commencement of (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.” Page 4 of 5 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants 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 appellants 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 extant rules. This is fair. It hardly needs to be stated that since the case would be considered afresh, all records/orders that effected rejection of claim of the appellants are hereby voided. 6. In view of the above, appeal is disposed of. We make it clear that in the event 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/- to each of the appellants for delay per day for the first month and ₹2,000/- for the period of next following. Now, no costs. dutta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 01-Aug-2025 14:34:41 (Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Page 5 of 5