The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.25720 of 2024 Bijay Kumar Naik …. Petitioner Mr. U.K. Samal, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No.
Decision
ORDER 03.12.2025 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Instruction provided by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate be kept in record. 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 provisions Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme vide the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 under Annexure-7. 4. It is contended that on the death of his father on 31.03.2019, petitioner made the application to get the benefit of engagement under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme within the stipulated time period. Even though petitioner’s application was entertained and wife of the deceased employee was declared medically unfit by the // 2 // Medical Board in its report dated 05.09.2020, petitioner’s claim when was rejected relying on the provisions contained under OCS(R.A) Amended Rules, 2020 vide order dated 11.10.2021 under Annexure-5, challenging the same, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.34568 of 2021. 4.1. This Court vide order dated 14.12.2022 under Annexure-6, while quashing order dated 11.10.2021, remitted the matter of the Opp. Parties to take a fresh decision in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, (Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2022 disposed of on 20.05.2022). 4.2. It is contended that on the face of such order passed by this Court on 14.12.2022, claim of the petitioner was once again rejected on self-same ground vide the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 under Annexure-7. 4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since petitioner’s mother was declared medically unfit to get the benefit of appointment, petitioner’s application was not only duly entertained, but also was processed all through. However, by applying the provisions contained under OCS(R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020, his claim was initially rejected vide order dated 11.10.2021 under Annexure-5. Even though this Court while quashing the said order vide order dated Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 14.12.2022 in W.P.(C) No.34568 of 2021, directed for consideration of the petitioner’s claim in the light of the order passed in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy, but the same was never followed. 4.4. It is further contended that since petitioner’s mother was declared medically unfit, there was no bar to entertain the claim of the petitioner and his claim could not have been rejected placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule-2(b) of the Rules. It is also contended that in the case of Ajit Kumar Barik Vs. State of Orissa and Others, this has already held that as per the Rule-2(b) of the 1990 Rules, even though 1st preference is to be given wife/husband of the deceased employee, there is no bar to consider the claim of the other family members coming within the definition of family. View expressed by this Court in Para-7 of the decision in the case of Ajit Kumar Barik reads as follows:- is the first preference "7. Of course to be given wife/husband of the deceased employee then son and unmarried daughter. However no where it was stated that in the case a family member in order of preference in the hierarchy is unfit and a medical certificate furnished to that effect, claim shall not be considered for engagement of the other eligible members in case of distress condition of the family. Therefore, the finding given by the Tribunal in the impugned order that she is not prepared to accept Group ’D’ post and offered it to her son in ignoring the materials on records is not sustainable." 4.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in the meantime Govt. has come up with a new Notification on 04.04.2025 inter alia holding that all those cases which have been rejected placing Page 3 of 5 // 4 // reliance on the provisions contained under OCS(R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020 shall be considered in the light of the provisions contained under OCS(R.A.) Amendment Rules, 2025. It is accordingly contended that in view of such notification issued by the Govt. on 04.04.2025, petitioner’s claim is required to be re- considered in terms of the provisions contained under OCS(R.A.) Amendment Rules, 2025 with quashing of the impugned order under Annexure-7. 5. Even though this Court vide order dated 07.11.2025, directed the State Counsel to obtain instruction, but no positive instruction has been obtained as yet. However, basing on the instruction so produced in Court today, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that petitioner’s mother/wife of the deceased employee on being referred to the Medical Board was declared unfit for Govt. job in its report dated 05.09.2020. It is also contended that in view of the notification dtd.04.04.2025, this court may pass appropriate order. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the submissions made and the fact that petitioner’s father while in service died on 31.03.2019 in view of the Notification issued on 04.04.2025 by the G.A. & P.G. Department, it is the view of this Court that petitioner’s claim is required to be considered in the light of the amended provisions contained under OCS(R.A.) Amendment Rules, 2025. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 6.1. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Ajit Kumar Barik, it is also the view of this Court that petitioner’s claim is required to be considered as he is the son of the deceased employee and wife of the deceased employee was declared medically unfit by the Medical Board in its report dated 05.09.2020. Accordingly, there is no bar to consider the claim of the petitioner, being the son of the deceased and coming within the definition of family as provided under Rule- 2(b) of the Rules. 6.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash impugned order dated 10.01.2024 so issued by O.P. No.3 under Annexure-7. While quashing the said order, this Court directs O.P. No.3 to take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s claim in the light of the notification issued on 04.04.2025. Such a fresh decision be taken and communicated within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Dec-2025 18:18:02 Page 5 of 5