D.Suresh Das Vs State of Odisha

For Petitioner - M/s A. Patnaik, (Ms.) Soma Patnaik, S. Mohapatra, S. Deepak, R.K. Pati, S.P. Mohapatra, T. Patnaik & A.N. Das, Advocates For Opp. Parties - Mr.D. N. Lenka, AGA for O.P.1

¶10

M/s.Tarananda Pattanaik & M.Ojha, Advocates for O.Ps.2 & 3 ---

¶11

CORAM

¶12

MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

¶13

¶14

Date of Hearing & Judgment : 28.10.2025

¶15

¶16

PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J .

¶17

Petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment by way of

¶18

rehabilitation having been rejected, vide Office Order dated

¶19

Page 1 of 9

¶20

11.03.2024 a copy whereof avails at Annexure-12, this petition has

¶21

been presented invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶22

2. Ms.Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the impugned order (Annexure-12) rejecting the claim of his client for compassionate appointment is fraught with several infirmities both legal & factual and therefore, the same is

¶23

liable to be invalidated and a direction for granting compassionate appointment be issued. She takes the Court through the chequered history of this case referring to documents, copies whereof are produced by way of annexures.

¶24

3. Mr. Pattanayak, learned counsel for the University resists the petition on the ground that his client has fund crunch and that any appointment would involve expenditure; unless the State funds the University, there is difficulty in granting appointment to the petitioner. Mr.Lenka, learned AGA submits that the University has been informed to take the decision at its

¶25

Page 2 of 9

¶26

own level in accordance with the extant rules and therefore, the

¶27

act of University, in trying to pass on the buck to his official

¶28

clients, is not justified.

¶29

4. Brief facts emerging from the recrods are as under:-

¶30

(i) Petitioner’s father gained entry to service of the University

¶31

as Common Room Attendant with effect from 27.11.2004. He

¶32

secured an order of regularization of his services at the hands of this Court in O.J.C. No.4411 of 1997 disposed of on 02.12.1998. Thus, the services of the petitioner’s father came to be regularized with retrospective effect from 27.11.2004. Father died on 10.03.2010 eventually resulting into petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment under the extant policy of the University. Nothing was done in the matter and therefore, petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.15838 of 2019 wherein a Coordinate

¶33

Bench of this Court, vide order dated 11.09.2019, directed its

¶34

consideration in a time bound way. This direction was not complied with and therefore, petitioner filed CONTC No.1304 of

¶35

Page 3 of 9

¶36

2022 and vide order dated 03.03.2022, a period of one month was granted as the OPs to comply with the direction.

¶37

(ii) The University, vide letter dated 04.05.2022, said that there was some correspondence happening between itself and the Government, and that after concrete steps are taken from the side of the government, the claim of petitioner would be considered. Some correspondence took place between the Government on the one hand and the University on the other, is also apparent. The Government, at long last, stated that it is for the University to take a decision in the matter as per the extant rules. Then, the University having woken up, made the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 under Annexure-12 rejecting the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that deceased father of the petitioner had no lien to the post which he held, because he was only granted regularization pursuant to Court’s order. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner is grieving before this Court in the present petition.

¶38

Page 4 of 9

¶39

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

¶40

5.1. In Sushma Gosain v. Union of India; (1989) 4 SCC 468, the Apex Court pointed out that the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardship arising due to death of the bread earner in the family and that such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The Court further observed that it was improper to keep such cases pending for years and that if there was no suitable post for appointment, a supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the claimant.

¶41

5.2. Admittedly, the services of petitioner’s father were regularized with effect from 27.11.2004 and thus, he was holding the post in question on substantive basis, how-so-low-ever the post may be. Therefore, the contra ground is militantly untenable, to

¶42

Page 5 of 9

¶43

say the least, especially when such a contention was not taken up in the earlier rounds of litigation. In fact, as already mentioned, petitioner’s father was before the Court seeking an order for regularization of his services; he is now dead & gone. His death happened more than fifteen years ago, i.e., on 10.03.2010, to be precise. It is not the case of the University nor of Government that

¶44

the petitioner had not applied for rehabilitation in time. Functionaries of University appear to be as callous as can be.

¶45

5.3. In a catena of decisions, Apex Court warned that the claims for compassionate appointment have to be treated on war footing. However, now a days Government, Governmental Institutions, such as Universities show scant respect to the Courts and disobey their orders. That would not augur well to the rule of law. At least, as a concession to the shortness of human life, University & Government should have coordinated with each other and done something for the grieving family of the deceased by giving compassionate appointment to his son within a reasonable time.

¶46

Page 6 of 9

¶47

Petitioner, as already mentioned, has been fighting the legal battles

¶48

one after another. He has spent valuable part of his life in the court corridors, which are not happy places. This is in addition to a huge sum of money he has spent all these years, family itself being in financial distress and its bread winner having gone with the wind. Less said is better.

¶49

5.4. Government may be a little justified in telling the University

¶50

that its rules providing for compassionate appointment are not applicable to the case of petitioner in particular and those of University employees in general. It had made it clear to the University as is pointed out by Mr. Lenka, learned AGA. It is not the case of University that the petitioner is otherwise not eligible

¶51

for compassionate appointment; obviously he is. Neither the University nor the Government knows the difficulty of a family that suffers financial distress when its sole bread winner falls to

¶52

the ground. Their hearts, if at all they have, do not appear to be at the right place. The claim for compassionate appointments is

¶53

Page 7 of 9

¶54

treated sans compassion as if showing compassion contravenes contours of Constitution. Much is not necessary to specify and less is insufficient to leave the truth unsaid.

¶55

5.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is more than justified in telling the Court that her client should not be sent back to the portal of University or of the Government again for fresh consideration, the only ground assigned for rejecting petitioner’s candidature for compassionate appointment being demonstrably wrong. Remand after remand would shake the confidence of scrupulous litigants in the judicial process. This case has seen too many rounds not even a leaf being turned on the positive side. This is a fit case for levying exemplary costs on the University for showing callous attitude to its own employees’ families. A grossly culpable action of the University cannot go with impunity. A cut needs to be inflicted on it vicariously and on its officers, mediately.

¶56

In the above circumstances, this petition having been favoured, a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order

¶57

Page 8 of 9

¶58

dated 11.03.2024 (Anneure-12) made by the Registrar, Utkal University coupled with a Writ of Mandamus to the University to issue order of compassionate appointment under the extant rehabilitation scheme within a period of three (3) weeks and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court, failing which the University shall pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) per day to the petitioner, till such order is issued.

¶59

The University shall pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to the petitioner within thirty (30) days to be reckoned from this day and delay, if brooked, would carry an additional sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only. The amount of cost may be recovered from the salary of erring officials personally in accordance with law.

¶60

Registry to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary to Government of Odisha for information and needful action.

¶61

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

¶62

(Dixit Krishna Shripad)

¶63

Judge

¶64

Orissa High Court, Cuttack

¶65

The 28^th day of October, 2025/Basu

¶66

Signature Not Verified

¶67

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 16:42:02

¶68

Page 9 of 9

D.Suresh Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Suresh Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Siba Prasada Panigrahi Vs Veer Surendra Sai University of Technology, Burla

Bibekananda Singh Vs Board of Secondary Education, Cuttack

Damayanti Pradhan Vs State of Orissa

Anakar Swain Vs State of Odisha

State of Orissa Vs Martha Pradhan

Bhakta Binod Baba Vs State of Odisha