The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.25207 of 2023 Subhalaxmi Pattnaik …. Petitioner Mr. S. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others Opposite Parties Mr. T.N. Pattanayak, Advocate for O.P. Nos.2 and 3 …. CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 16.07.2025 08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Facts
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging office order dated 18.05.2023, so passed by O.P. No.3 under Annexure-8. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme was rejected. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner’s father while working as a Peon in the PG Department of Commerce under the University, died in harness on 01.02.2016. After such death of the deceased employee while in service and considering the application made by the petitioner’s brother/son of the deceased employee, he was provided with appointment as a // 2 // Watchman under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme vide order dated 27.10.2018. 4.1. It is however contended that after being provided with such appointment on 27.10.2018, petitioner’s
Legal Reasoning
there is no dispute that petitioner is the daughter of the deceased employee and since the benefit extended in favour of the son vide order dated 27.10.2018 came to an end due to the untimely death of the beneficiary on 28.01.2019, petitioner also became eligible to get the said benefit. 4.3. However, on the ground that petitioner is the sister of the beneficiary, the claim was rejected vide the impugned order. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Page 2 of 7 // 3 // 5. Learned counsel appearing for the University-O.P. Nos.2 and 3 on the other hand contended that on the death of the deceased employee on 01.02.2016, considering the application made by his son, he was provided with the appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme vide order dated 27.10.2018. 5.1. However, after such extension of the benefit, the beneficiary died on 28.01.2019. On such death of the beneficiary on 28.01.2019, when petitioner raised her claim to get the benefit by making her application under Annexure-5, the same was considered and rejected vide the impugned order dated 18.05.2023 under Annexure-8. It is however contended that since the application was made by the petitioner being the sister of the beneficiary and there being no provision under OCS(R.A.) Rules to extend such benefit in favour of the sister of a deceased employee, her claim was not found maintainable and accordingly rejected. 5.2. A further submission was also made that since the beneficiary died on 28.01.2019 and there being no provision under OCS(R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020 to extend the benefit in favour of a sister of the deceased employee, the claim was rejected accordingly vide the impugned order. Not only that relying on the provisions contained under Rule-7 of the OCS(R.A.) Rules, 1990, it is contended that benefit once extended in favour of the son of the deceased employee vide order dated Page 3 of 7 // 4 // 27.10.2018, no further benefit can be extended. Rule-7 of the OCS(R.A.) Rules, 1990 reads as follows:- “7. Appointment under these rules shall be made once against any post either in Group C or Group D which is a base post in the said groups and the maximum scale of pay for such posts in Group C and Group D shall not exceed Rs.6,000 and Rs.3,200 respectively, as revised by the Government from time to time, when a member of the family has been appointment to a particular post, no further claim shall be entertained for appointment the same person to a higher post. For any further advancement in service, he will have to take his chance in the normal course and compete with other eligible persons.” 5.3. It is accordingly contended that either way petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit as being the sister of the deceased employee and the ground that the benefit once extended cannot be re-extended considering the claim of the petitioner. 6. To the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the University, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the original employee having been died on 01.02.2016 and the beneficiary on 28.01.2019, just after 3 (three) months of getting the benefit, provisions contained under OCS(R.A.) Rules, 2020 is not applicable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2022
Arguments
brother died on 28.01.2019. It is contended that since the benefit of appointment extended in favour of son of the deceased employee on 27.10.2018 came to an end with his death on 28.01.2019, petitioner being the daughter of the deceased employee, became entitled to get the benefit and accordingly made the application to get the same on 25.06.2021 under Annexure-5. But O.P. No.3 on the ground that there is no provision under the OCS (R.A.) Rules, to extend the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in favour of a sister of the deceased employee, rejected the claim. 4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
Decision
disposed of on 20.05.2022. 6.1. A further submission is also made that petitioner being the daughter of the deceased employee even though she has got married in the meantime, in view of Page 4 of 7 // 5 // the decision of this Court in the case of Kshirabadi Bala Behera Vrs. Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack and Others, the married daughter is eligible to get the benefit. 6.2. It is also contended that the word “once” reflected in Rule-7 of the OCS(R.A.) Rules, 1990 cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, as the son of the deceased employee after getting the benefit on 27.10.2018 died on 28.01.2019, within 3 (three) months of his getting the benefit and petitioner’s claim is required to be considered taking into account the death of her father on 01.02.2016. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner’s father while working under the University, died on 01.02.2016 in harness. After such death of the deceased employee and considering the application made by his son, he was provided with appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme vide order dated 27.10.2018. But as found from the record, the beneficiary/son of the deceased employee died on 28.01.2019 i.e. within 3 (three) months of getting the benefit. 7.1. On such death of the beneficiary, when petitioner raised her claim to get the benefit by making her application on 25.06.2021 under Annexure-5, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 18.05.2023 Page 5 of 7 // 6 // under Annexure-8. Such rejection was made on the ground that no such provision is there under OCS(R.A.) Rules to extend the benefit in favour of a sister of the deceased employee. 7.2. This Court after going through the application made by the petitioner under Annexure-5, finds that petitioner raised her claim to get the benefit being the daughter of the original deceased employee but not as the sister of the beneficiary. Even though it is not disputed that petitioner in the meantime has got married, this Court following the decision in the case of Kshirabadi Bala Behera as cited (supra), is of the view that married daughters are also eligible to get the benefit under OCS(R.A.) Rules, 1990. 7.3. With regard to the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the University that once the benefit has been extended in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-7 of the 1990 Rules, no further benefit can be extended, this Court is of the view that the word “once” reflected in Rule-7 of the Rules cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case as the beneficiary died within 3 (three) months of getting the benefit. Therefore, it is the considered view of this Court that claim of the petitioner falls in the category of a special case and it requires special consideration by the authority. Page 6 of 7 // 7 // 7.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while quashing the impugned order dated 18.05.2023 so passed by O.P. No.3 under Annexure-8, directs the said Opp. Party to consider the petitioner as being the married daughter of the original deceased employee who died on 01.02.2016 and take a decision in the light of the decision in the case of Kshirabadi Bala Behera as cited (supra). Petitioner is directed to provide a copy of this order along with the order passed in the case of Kshirabadi Bala Behera before O.P. No.3 for compliance. 7.5. This Court directs O.P. No.3 to take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s claim by treating her as the married daughter of the original deceased employee and take a lawful decision on the same within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the petitioner. It is however observed that this order shall not be treated as a precedent in any future claim of similar nature. This order was passed considering the peculiar facts and circumstances involved. 8. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Jul-2025 19:26:45 Basudev (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 7 of 7