Allowed

Kshyana Prabha Naik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Aug 2025WP(C)/12301/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A widow whose compassionate appointment claim was rejected solely as belated challenged the refusal. The court held Rule 9(11) permits condonation without a separate application and authorities must act compassionately. The rejection letter was quashed and mandamus issued to grant the appointment.

What did the court decide?

Rejection letter quashed; delay to be condoned and compassionate appointment granted within eight weeks with compliance reported to Registrar General.

Kshyana Prabha Naik Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) NO.12301 OF 2024

¶3

In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India

¶4

Kshyana Prabha Naik …. Petitioner

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & others …. Opp. Parties

¶7

Advocates appeared in this case:

¶8

For Petitioner : M/s.Satya Ranjan Pati, D. Pati, S.S.S. Swain & L. Behura, Advocates For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.K. Jee, Addl. Government Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

¶11

J U D G M E N T

¶12

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

Date of hearing & judgment : 18.08.2025

¶14

PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J .

¶15

Petitioner-widow, having suffered rejection of her application

¶16

for compassionate appointment only on the ground of claim being

¶17

Page 1 of 8

¶18

belated, vide Letter No. 1672 dated 12.04.2024, is grieving before the Writ Court.

¶19

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that his client has satisfied all the conditions for compassionate appointment, her husband having died in harness on 14.01.2018; she had applied for appointment on 10.11.2020, of course bit belatedly; however, Sub-Rule (11) of Rule-9 of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (in short, ‘1990 Rules’) provides for condonation of delay; the answering OP in the given circumstances ought to have condoned delay on its own and offered compassionate appointment. This having not happened, he submits, interference of this Court is eminently warranted.

¶20

3. Learned AGA for the OPs resists the petition with equal vehemence contending that the policy for compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to public service should be from open market and on merit; therefore, the aspiring appointees on compassionate ground ought to comply with the conditions for such appointment; one such condition is limitation period of one year reckoned from the death of employee

¶21

Page 2 of 8

¶22

vide Rule 9(6) of the 1990 Rules; in the instant case, his widow has made application long after one year of death and she has not offered any explanation for such delay. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶23

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶24

4.1. The employee died in harness on 14.01.2018 leaving petitioner as widow; she had applied for compassionate appointment on 10.11.2020, whereas the normal one year period expired on 13.01.2019, as per Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 9 of 1990 Rules. However, Sub-Rule (11) of Rule 9, which provides for condonation of delay, reads as under:

¶25

“(11) Notwithstanding the period of limitation prescribed in Subrule (6), the delay in submission of application for appointment under these rules may be condoned by Government in concerned Administrative Department by an order to the effect that the applicant had sufficient cause for not submitting the application within such period.”

¶26

The subject rules are founded on the idea of difficulty which the family of a Government servant dying in harness, would encounter

¶27

Page 3 of 8

¶28

in the saga of life. Therefore, the provisions of such a statutory policy, as expressed in the form of Rules, have to be construed with due sympathy & compassion. After all, compassion is not unconstitutional value. In matters like this, Portia’s knife in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice cannot be made use of, ours being a Model State, and not East India Company nor a Mughal Regime of the bygone era. Compassion is a virtue; all scriptures whichever be the faith, preach to practise it. Sympathy & compassion have to animate decisions of the authorities consistent with the requirement of Rule position. That having not happened, there is error apparent on the face of impugned order warranting its invalidation.

¶29

4.2. Rule 9(11), which is reproduced above, apparently provides for entertaining belated claims for compassionate appointment. Added, Rule 16(1) provides for not only relaxing any provision of these Rules, but dispensing with too. The same has the following text:

¶30

“16(1) The State Government where satisfied that the operation of all or any provisions of these rules causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense

¶31

Page 4 of 8

¶32

with or relax the provisions to such extent as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.”

¶33

It is difficult to countenance the contention of learned AGA that a separate application has to be made by the claimant seeking condonation of delay. One cannot oblivious to the fact that a poor widow was before the authorities, with avalanche of difficulties when bread winner of the family dies in harness that too abruptly. It is ideal if some explanation is offered in the very application made for compassionate appointment. In any event, a belated claim cannot be turned down without giving an opportunity to the applicant to explain the delay, if any, more particularly when all other conditions are complied with like the one required in distress certificate or the like. That would accord with the principles of natural justice too. Even otherwise, the authorities should on their own ascertain from the applicant by holding a summery inquiry as to the existence of facts & circumstances that resulted into claim being made belatedly. We hasten to add that the analogy of Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 that arguably requires a separate application being filed for condonation of delay, is impertinent.

¶34

Page 5 of 8

¶35

4.3. When death of the bread winner of a family happens, it is like a bolt from the blue. It brings a train of problems, one of them being financial distress. As already mentioned above, the policy providing for compassionate appointment is founded on humanitarian values. No claimant for such appointment would stand benefited by brooking delay, has to be kept in view. It does not behove a gigantic entity like the State to reject a claim of the kind only on the technical ground of limitation, when the Rules themselves provide for condonation of delay and also dispensing with rigor of the Rule concerned.

¶36

4.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is more than justified in placing reliance on Mohinder Singh Gill V. Chief Election Commission; AIR 1978 SC 851 in support of his contention that his client’s application for compassionate appointment having been negatived only on the ground of delay, there should be a positive direction for granting the claim, instead of remitting the matter for consideration afresh. He is also right in pointing out that the State has not filed any counter nor does it dispute otherwise entitlement of the petitioner to such appointment. Added to this, the decision

¶37

Page 6 of 8

¶38

on claim for compassionate appointment has to be taken at the earliest & on war footing. Therefore, remand would not do justice. On the contrary, it may generate one more legal battle.

¶39

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the Office Letter No. 2622 dated 12.04.2024 issued by the District Education Officer, KalahandiOpposite Party No.3; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the jurisdictional Opposite Parties to condone the delay & allow the application of the petitioner by issuing appointment order on compassionate ground and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court within an out limit of eight (8) weeks reckoned from this day.

¶40

Default of delay shall be viewed seriously in the next level of legal proceedings, if the petitioner is driven to take up.

¶41

It is open to the answer opposite parties to solicit any information or documents from the side of petitioner or from such other Department, as required for taking a decision on the subject

¶42

Page 7 of 8

¶43

application swiftly; however, in that guise delay shall not be brooked.

¶44

Now, no costs.

¶45

Web copy of this judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶46

Dixit Krishna Shripad, Judge

¶47

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 18^th day of August, 2025/Basu

¶48

Signature Not Verified

¶49

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 21-Aug-2025 14:42:45

¶50

Page 8 of 8

Kshyana Prabha Naik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kshyana Prabha Naik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Susama Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Arun Kumar Joshi Vs the Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi

Mohendra Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Ashok Kumar Lenka Vs State of Odisha

Jyotibala Rath Vs State of Odisha

Alekha Bihari Panda Vs State of Odisha