Paritosh Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶16

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶17

“It is therefore prayed that your Lordships shall be graciously pleased enough to admit the aforesaid writ petition, issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any form of writ or writs issuing Rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties particularly the District Education Officer, Angul, Opposite Party No.3 to show cause as to why direction shall not be given to him to give appointment to the petitioner under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme as per the OCS (RA) Rule, 1990 and OCS (RA) Amendment Rules, 2025 within a time

¶18

Page 1 of 4.

¶19

stipulated, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances: if the Opp.Parties do not show cause or shows insufficient cause, The Rule N(S) be made absolute.

¶20

And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs as this Hon’ble deem, fit and proper.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the father of the Petitioner namely late Purna Chandra Pradhan, who was working as a Assistant Teacher in Pokatunga High School, Pokatunga, died in harness on 21.03.2001 leaving behind his legal heirs. He further contended that after the death of the deceased government employee his wife namely Lilabati Pradhan initially applied for appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2001. However, such application was never considered by the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the present Petitioner who happens to be a son of the deceased government employee and looking after the family submitted an application in 2012 on attaining the age of majority. Although, such application of the present Petitioner was considered and his name was included in the list of candidates to be appointed on compassionate ground, as is evident from the document from the letter dated 20.05.2025 and list appended to Annexure-4, however, till date the Petitioner has not been given appointment. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended

¶23

Page 2 of 4.

¶24

that the mother of the Petitioner initially applied for appointment on compassionate ground immediately after the death of the father of the Petitioner. However, such application was not considered by the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted an application on 02.09.2012 for giving him appointment on compassionate ground under the O.C.S. (R.A) Rules, 1990. Such application was kept pending for more than a decade. Finally, the D.E.O., Angul published a list on 20.05.2025 finalising certain names and in the said list the name of the Petitioner appears at Serial No.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that the Petitioner has been enlisted and his name appeared at Serial No.1, however till date he has not been given appointment. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties to give appointment to the Petitioner, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however taking into consideration the letter dated 20.05.2025 at Annexure-4, the Petitioner should have approached the D.E.O., Angul, Opposite Party No.3 to the writ application for taking an early action on his letter. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ application is premature and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed.

¶26

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the

¶27

Page 3 of 4.

¶28

background facts as well as the documents annexed to the writ application, further taking note of the letter dated 20.05.2025 of the Opposite Party No.3 at Annexure-4, this Court observes that the name of the Petitioner has been shortlisted and his name appears as against Serial No.1 of the list prepared by the Opposite Party No.3 on 20.05.2025 at Annexure-4. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ application by directing the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by taking into consideration the list which has already been prepared by him at Annexure-4. In the event there are no other legal impediment, the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner and proceed further in the matter and give appointment to the Petitioner under the O.C.S. (R.A) Rules, 1990 within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. Any development in the matter be intimated to the Petitioner from time to time.

¶29