The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 22399 of 2023 ..... Anup Ekka Petitioner Mr. B.K. Nayak, Advocate State of Odisha &Ors. -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 10.09.2025 Order No.04 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
2.Heard Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. 4. Vide the impugned communication dt.16.03.2023 under Annexure-7, claim of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that Petitioner being the brother of the deceased employee, is not a family member as per the provisions contained under the OCS (R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020. 4. It is contended that on the death of the deceased employee on 22.04.2017, Petitioner after obtaining the relevant certificate and the no objection certificate from the other legal heirs, made the application on 14.02.2018, before Opp. Party No. 4 under Annexure- 4 series. It is contended that after receipt of the application so made Page 1 of 4. by the Petitioner on 14.02.2018 though various steps were taken to consider his grievance, but ultimately vide the impugned communication dtd.16.03.2023 under Annexure-7, claim of the Petitioner was rejected relying on the provisions contained under OCS (RA) Amended Rules, 2020. 4.1. It is contended that since the deceased employee had died on 24.05.2017 and the application was made within the prescribed time period, rejection of the Petitioner’s claim relying on the provisions contained under OCS (RA) Amended Rules, 2020 is not just and proper in view of the decision in the case of Malayananda Sethi Vs. State of Odisha reported in 2022 (II) OLR (SC) 1. 4.2. It is also contended that in the meantime, Govt. has come up with a notification dtd.04.04.2025 by amending the provisions with a set of Rules i.e. OCS (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025. Not only that Govt. has also come up with a clarification on 13.06.2025 to consider similar nature of claim, which has been rejected relying on the OCS (RA) Amended Rules, 2020. 4.3. The amendment which has been carried out as well as the clarification reads as follows:- “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 :— "(9) (a) All pending applications, relating to death of Government employee prior to the date of commencement of the Odisha Civil Services (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: Page 2 of 4. 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.” xxx xxx xxx “1. The RA applications where the date of death of Government employee is prior to the commencement of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 and have been rejected under the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 shall be re-considered following the rules prevailing on the date of death of Government employee for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. 2. Those RA applications which are sub-judice in the Hon’ble Court and can be addressed as per the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025 may be re- considered following provisions prescribed under this Amendment Rule. 3. The RA appointment can be provided against the available Group-C/Group-D vacancies following the Rule provisions prevailing on the date of death of Government employee.” 4.4. It is accordingly contended that the impugned rejection is no more sustainable and requires a reconsideration in terms of the provisions contained under OCS (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025 and the clarification issued on 13.06.2025. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel also fairly contended that Petitioner’s claim is required to be considered in terms of the new Rules so notified on 04.04.2025. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that on the death of the deceased employee on 22.04.2017, Petitioner being the Page 3 of 4. unmarried brother of the deceased employee, he made the application under Annexure-4 series. It is not disputed that the said application was made within the prescribed time period as provided under OCS (R.A.) Rules, 1990. It is also found that after accepting the Petitioner’s application under Annexure-4 series, it was duly processed with regard to the consideration of the Petitioner’s claim. But vide the impugned communication, Petitioner’s claim was rejected relying on the provisions contained under OCS (RA) Amended Rules, 2020. 6.1. Placing reliance on the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malayananda Sethi as cited (supra) and the notification issued on 04.04.2025 as well as the clarification dtd.13.06.2025, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned communication dtd.16.03.2023 so issued under Annexure-7 by Opp. Party No. 4. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to the said Opp. Party No. 4 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim in terms of the provisions contained under OCS (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025 and the clarification issued on 13.06.2025. Such a fresh decision be taken within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner.
Decision
7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Sep-2025 18:00:42 (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Page 4 of 4.