Compassionate appointment claim rejected under OCS (R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020 despite death occurring in 2018 and timely application. Relying on Malayananda Sethi and a government notification dated 04.04.2025, the Court quashed the rejection and remitted the matter for fresh decision under the 2025 Rules within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.20111 of 2020
Pankajini Swain
Petitioner
Mr. Deepak Ranjan Parida, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and …. Opposite Parties another
Mr. Jayant Kumar Bal, AGA
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
04.09.2025
Order No. 06.
2. Heard Mr. D.R. Parida, learned Counsel for the Petitioner so also Mr. Bal, learned AGA for the StateOpposite Parties.
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 Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme vide impugned communication dtd. 07.07.2020 as at Annexure-7.
4. It is contended that on the death of the deceased employee on 08.05.2018, as reflected in Annexure-2, Petitioner made the application to get the benefit of appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on 03.09.2018 under Annexure-4 series. It is also contended that since mother of the deceased was available, she was also declared unfit. But on the face of such materials being
Page 1 of 3
available with the competent authority, the Petitioner’s claim was rejected relying on the provisions enshrined under OCS (R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020.
4.1 It is contended that since the deceased employee died on 08.05.2018 and the application was made within the stipulated time period, in view of the decision in the case of Malayananda Sethi Vs. State of Odisha (Civil Appeal No.4103 of 2022 disposed of on 20.05.2022), claim of the Petitioner could not have been rejected placing reliance on the provision contained under OCS (R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020.
4.2 It is also contended that in view of the recent notification issued by the Govt. in the G.A. Department on 04.04.2025, it has been decided that in case of death of Govt. employee occurred on/after commencement of the OCS (R.A.) Amendment Rules, 2016 and before commencement of OCS (R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020, it shall be governed by the provisions contained under OCS (R.A.) Rules, 1990.
4.3 It is contended that, in view of the Notification issued on 04.04.2025, rejection of the Petitioner’s claim is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires reconsideration in accordance with the provisions contained under OCS (R.A.) Amendment Rules, 2025.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate also fairly concedes that in view of the notification issued by the Govt., Petitioner’s claim requires reconsideration under OCS (R.A.) Amendment Rules, 2025.
6. Having heard learned Counsel for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that on the
Page 2 of 3
death of the deceased employee on 08.05.2018, Petitioner made the application on 03.09.2018 under Annexure-4 series. Petitioner’s claim was rejected vide the impugned communication dtd. 07.07.2020 under Annexure-7 relying on the provisions enshrined under OCS (R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020. In view of the decision in Malayananda Sethi (supra), and the notification issued on 04.04.2025, this Court is of the view that Petitioner’s claim could not have been rejected relying on the provisions contained under OCS (R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020.
7. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned communication/ rejection order dtd. 07.07.2020 under Annexure-7. This Court remits the matter back to the Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim in terms of the provisions enshrined under OCS(R.A.) Amendment Rules, 2025.It is made clear that, a decision be taken afresh in the said regard within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the result thereof shall be made known to the Petitioner within the said period.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Kanhu
(S. K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Page 3 of 3
Digitally Signed Signed by: KANHU BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 05-Sep-2025 12:19:57
1 issue framed by the court
Whether rejection of the petitioner's claim for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, based on OCS (R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020 despite the employee's death in 2018, was sustainable?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Malayananda Sethi Vs. State of OdishaApplied¶6
(Civil Appeal No.4103 of 2022 disposed of on 20.05.2022)
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Pankajini Swain
State of Odisha
Opposite Party No.2
Sanjay Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
