The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No. 1202 of 2022 1. State of Odisha represented through Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar 2. Collector, Nayagarh 3 Commissioner Excise, Cuttack Division, Cuttack 4. Superintendent of Excise, Nayagarh ….. Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal, A.S.C. Appellants -versus- Prakash Kumar Sethi ….. Respondent Mr. Sukanta Kumar Mishra, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 13.08.2025 Order No. 05. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
At the outset, Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, learned counsel submits that his appearance may be ignored and his name may not be reflected on the top of the brief as well as in the cause list. Since Mr. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has already joined the panel of Law Officers of learned Advocate General, Odisha, his appearance for Respondent is ignored and his name may not be reflected on the top of the brief or in the cause list henceforth. 3. The Appellants-State of Odisha in the intra-court appeal assail the order dated 28th February, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4487 of 2022 wherein it was observed as Page 1 of 6 under:- “As agreed by learned counsel for the parties, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing opposite party no.1 to take a decision on the recommendation made opposite party no.3 vide Annexures-3 dated 12.08.2014 taking into consideration the judgment of the apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi, 2021(II) OLR (SC) 1072, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.”’ 4. Although the order impugned herein appears to have been passed on consent, but Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that no concession was made by learned State Counsel to reconsider the case of the Appellants in terms of the recommendation for appointment under the Orissa Civil Service Rehabilitation Assistance Rules, 1990 (As Amended in 2016). 5. In course of hearing, Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that assailing similar nature of orders passed by this Court, the State of Odisha had moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court in batch of Civil Appeals i.e. Civil Appeal No. 5842 of 2025 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 28521 of 2023) (State of Odisha & Others vs. Jita Luha and Batch of Appeals). In the meantime, the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance), Rules, 1990 (for brevity ‘1990 Rules’) has undergone amendment in the year 2016 (for brevity Page 2 of 6 ‘2016 Rules’) basing upon which the case of the Respondent was rejected by the Superintendent of Excise, Nayagarh. Subsequently, 2016 Rules underwent amendment substituting Rule 8. Thereafter, on 17th February, 2020 Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 (for brevity ‘2020 Rules’) was notified substituting the 1990 Rules Rule 6 thereof prescribed mode of appointment as specified in Rule 6(9) of 2020 Rules, whereby it was made clear that the pending cases as on the date of publication of 2020 Rules shall be dealt with in accordance with provisions of the said Rules. Thereafter, Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2025 (for brevity ‘the 2025 Rules’) came into force substituting Rule 6(9) of 2020 Rules and introducing Rule 9 (a), (b) and (c). However, during pendency of the appeals before Hon’ble Supreme Court notification dated 4th April, 2025 came into force governing the field of appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Rules. 6. Taking into consideration the developments as stated above,
Decision
Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the aforesaid Batch of Appeals vide judgement dated 2nd May, 2025 with the following direction:- “12. After hearing the learned Advocate General and learned advocates appearing for respondents and bestowing our consideration, in our view, the directions issued in the order impugned finds force from the amended rules notified on 04.04.2025 referred above. Therefore, we are inclined to maintain the order of the High Court and to dispose of all these appeals with the following directions: (i) The respondents are at liberty to submit an Page 3 of 6 application, if not already submitted, within a period of twelve weeks, to the jurisdictional authorities along with requisite documents as specified in the notification dated 04.04.2025. (ii) In the cases where application has already been submitted and any additional documents are required to be submitted, the same be furnished to the authority in reference to their pending application or in reference to the demand, made by the authority if any, within the same period of twelve weeks. (iii) On receiving the applications as mentioned above, the appropriate authority shall examine the cases of individual respondent in terms of the 2025 amended rules and pass appropriate order. It is needless to say that the applications, so filed, shall not be rejected on technical grounds and shall be considered sympathetically strictly in accordance with the Rules. (iv) In case the post is available, the competent authority shall pass an order of appointment, otherwise the procedure as prescribed in the relevant rules shall be followed and thereafter the respondents be permitted to join their duties within the time specified. (v) It is also clarified that the appointment already granted by the Government extending the benefit of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme shall remain unaffected by the directions as contained hereinabove. (vi) In case the claim of individual respondent is rejected by the authorities, they are at liberty to take Page 4 of 6 recourse of law as is permissible. (vii) The directions as issued hereinabove shall apply mutatis mutandis in all pending cases. The aspirants are not required to take recourse until their claim is rejected. Pending writ petitions before High Court, if any, shall also be disposed of in accordance with the directions issued above. (viii) Accordingly, the present appeals are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.” (emphasis supplied) 7. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that in view of the subsequent development, the case of the Respondent will be considered accordingly in terms of the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. Mr. Sukanta Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that in view of the series of direction at para-12 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the case of the Respondent should be considered. 9. In view of the above, this Court without delving further into the merit of the case of the parties, disposes of the Writ Appeal with a direction that the Respondent is at liberty to submit an application, if not already submitted, within a period of twelve weeks, to the jurisdictional authority along with requisite documents as specified in the notification dated 04.04.2025. In such event, the case of the Respondent shall be considered in terms of the direction issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) taking into consideration the recommendation of the Commissioner of Excise, Cuttack Division, Page 5 of 6 Cuttack–Appellant No.3 dated 12th August, 2014 (Annexure-3) to the writ petition. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. 11. Since the recommendation was made in the year 2018, it is expected that a decision with regard to appointment of the Respondent under the Amended Rules, 2025 shall be taken as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of filing of the application by the Respondent along with certified copy of this order before the Superintendent of Excise, Nayagarh-Appellant No.4 and the decision thereof shall be communicated to the Respondent forthwith. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge Sukanta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 20-Aug-2025 17:42:29 Page 6 of 6