Disposed¶20

Manoj Kumar Palei v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC16 Sept 2025WP(C)/20387/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court; WP(C) No. 20387 of 2025; Manoj Kumar Palei v. State of Odisha & Ors.; Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy; order dated 16.09.2025; Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme; OCS (R.A.) Rules 1990; 1998 amendment; retirement on ground of invalidation; office order dtd.25.07.2012; rejection order dtd.17.06.2025; disabled person; sympathetic consideration; liberty to approach Government; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without interfering with the impugned rejection order, but with liberty to the Petitioner to move the Government for engagement on the ground of his being a disabled person. ¶20

Manoj Kumar Palei Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 20387 of 2025

¶2

Manoj Kumar Palei

¶3

..... Petitioner Mr. C.R. Pattnaik, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶6

..... Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶9

16.09.2025

¶10

Order No. 01

¶11

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme so communicated vide order dtd.17.06.2025 under Annexure-6.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner’s father while in service was allowed to take retirement on the ground of invalidation vide office order dtd.25.07.2012 under Annexure-3. Thereafter, when Petitioner made an application to get the benefit of appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, the same was ultimately rejected vide impugned order dtd.17.06.2025 under Annexure-6.

¶15

Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that benefit of Rehabilitation appointment has since been stopped in favour of the employee who are allowed to take retirement on the ground of invalidation in terms of the amendment carried to the OCS

¶16

Page 1 of 2.

¶17

(R.A.) Rules in the year 1998. It is contended that Petitioner’s father took retirement on the ground of invalidation vide office order dtd.25.07.2012 and the preamended OCS (R.A.) Rules, 1990 is not applicable to the facts of the Petitioner’s claim. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned rejection.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner though does not dispute the aforesaid legal proposition, but contended that since Petitioner is a disabled person, his claim be considered sympathetically.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court though does not find any illegality or irregularity with the impugned order, but grants liberty to the Petitioner to move the Govt. for his engagement on the ground of being a disabled person.

¶20

With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶21

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶22

Sneha

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 19-Sep-2025 10:19:05

¶25

Page 2 of 2.

Manoj Kumar Palei v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Palei 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sasmita Dash Vs State of Odisha

Lt Colonel Dr Laxmi Dhar Bhuyan Vs Chief Army Staff,South Block,New Delhi

Lokanath Samal Vs State of Odisha

Ramesh Chandra Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Rajanikanta Patel Vs State of Odisha

Sasmita Sahoo Vs State of Odisha