The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 24816 of 2025 Sasmita Barik ..... State of Odisha & Ors. ..... -versus- Petitioner Mr. A.K. Biswal, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, ASC THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 11.09.2025 Order No. 01 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that, in the interest of justice this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the application the of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme shall not be considered; for her appointment under the petitioner And As to why the Opp. Parties shall not directed to appoint the petitioner under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme within a stipulated period; And Page 1 of 5. As to why the decision dtd. 03.02.2024 taken by the Collector, Mayurbhanj shall not be declared as incomplete one and the Collector, Mayurbhanj shall not be directed to take a decision by appointing the petitioner under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme; And If the Opp. Parties failed to show cause or show insufficient/irrelevant cause than make the said rule absolute; And pass such other order/orders, direction/s by this Hon’ble Court as deem fit and proper. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that on the death of the deceased employee on 24.06.2013 while working in the office of Superintendent of Excise, Mayurbhanj as ASI of Excise, Petitioner being the unmarried daughter of the deceased employee at the relevant point of time, made her application to get the benefit of appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. 4.1. It is contended that such an application was not only entertained but also was processed and after receipt of the distress certificate from the Collector and District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, Superintendent of Excise, Mayurbhanj vide letter dtd.16.12.2019 under Annexure-3 forwarded the claim to the office of the Excise Commissioner, Odisha for doing the needful. It is however contended that vide letter dtd.17.08.2021 under Annexure-4, Excise Commissioner, Odisha-Opp. Party No. 2 directed the Collector & District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj-Opp. Party No. 4 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim in terms of the provisions contained under OCS (R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020. Page 2 of 5. 4.2. On the face of such development when no action was taken, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 39874 of 2023. This Court vide order dtd.12.12.2023 under Annexure-5, directed Opp. Party No. 4 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of appointment. However, while complying the said direction, the impugned order has been passed, wherein Opp. Party No. 4 has sought for instruction from the Addl. Secretary, Excise Department for taking further action in the matter. 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the deceased employee died on 24.06.2013 and the application was made in time which was not only entertained but also processed, there is no occasion on the part of Opp. Party No. 4 to call for any clarification from the State in the Department of Excise. 4.4. It is also contended that in view of the recent notification issued by the Govt. in G.A. & P.G. Department on 04.04.2025 and the clarification issued on 13.06.2025, all such pending applications are required to be considered in the light of the provisions contained under OCS (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025. 4.5. 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 Page 3 of 5. Government employee Assistance Scheme: for appointment under Rehabilitation 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.” 4.6. It is accordingly contended that in view of the notification issued on 04.04.2025 and the clarification issued on 13.06.2025, Opp. Party No. 4 be directed to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim in accordance with the provisions contained under OCS (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025 without asking for any clarification from the Department. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel also fairly contended that in view of the notification issued on 04.04.2025, Petitioner’s claim is required Page 4 of 5. to be considered in the light of the provisions contained under OCS (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs Opp. Party No. 4 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in terms of the notification dtd.04.04.2025 and the clarification issued on 13.06.2025 within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. 6.1. However, since it is contended that Petitioner in the meantime has got married, placing reliance on the decision in the case of Kshirabadi Bala Behera Vs. OAT & Ors., 2022 (Supp. I) OLR 620, it is also the view of this Court that the Petitioner is otherwise eligible to get the benefit of appointment. Petitioner is directed to provide a copy of the order along with the decision in the case of Kshirabadi Bala Behera before Opp. Party No. 4 for compliance. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Sep-2025 18:01:54 Page 5 of 5.