Prahallad Swain v. Union of India

Orissa HC8 Jul 2026WP(C)/22484/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa HC writ disposed; Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme appointment claim rejected 30.03.2020 (Annexure-5) after order in W.P.(C) No.128 of 2019; father's 2003 incapacitation retirement; petitioner aged 52; no reconsideration directed; liberty to seek compensation from O.P. No.3 (Corporation); three-week application window; three-month decision timeline with communication; Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy; order dated 08.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to move a compensation application before Opposite Party No.3 within three weeks; O.P. No.3 to take a lawful decision within three months of receipt, with due communication to the petitioner. ¶¶24

Prahallad Swain Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme following his father's 2003 incapacitation retirement, notwithstanding the rejection of his claim vide order dated 30.03.2020. +1 more

¶¶16

Court's answer

Since the petitioner has already attained the age of 52 years, no fruitful purpose would be solved by issuing any direction to re-consider his claim to get the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

It is open to the petitioner to make a claim for compensation before Opposite Party No.3, and any such application is to be moved within a period of three weeks.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

Upon receipt of such application, Opposite Party No.3 shall take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three months, with due communication to the petitioner.ratio¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (single judge, Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) disposed of W.P.(C) No.22484 of 2020 (Prahallad Swain v. Union of India and Others) by order dated 08.07.2026. The petitioner's father had been allowed to retire in 2003 on the ground of incapacitation, with a provision for the petitioner's appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme that was never considered; basing on an order of this Court in W.P.(C) No.128 of 2019, the Corporation rejected the claim vide order dated 30.03.2020 (Annexure-5). Holding that the petitioner, having already attained 52 years, would gain nothing from a direction to re-consider the claim, the Court left him free to claim compensation before Opposite Party No.3: any application moved within three weeks is to be decided lawfully by O.P. No.3 within three months of receipt, with due communication to the petitioner.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.22484 of 2020

¶3

Prahallad Swain

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Union of India and Others …. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI

¶9

Mr. D. Nayak, Advocate for O.P. Nos.2 and 3

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

08.07.2026

Order No.

09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶15

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

3. It is contended that even though petitioner’s father was allowed to take retirement on the ground of incapacitation in the year 2003 and there was provision to provide the appointment to the petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme but the same was never considered till basing on the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.128 of 2019, petitioner’s claim was rejected vide order dated 30.03.2020 under Annexure5.

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

3. 1. It is contended that since on the face of his eligibility, the Corporation delayed the matter and only rejected the claim vide the impugned order dated 30.03.2020 under Annexure-5 and petitioner in the meantime has already attained the age of 52 years, petitioner be given liberty to make an appropriate application seeking compensation from the Opp. PartyCorporation for such delayed action on their part in considering and taking a decision.

¶19

4. Learned counsel appearing for O.P. Nos.2 and 3 on the other hand contended that petitioner’s claim has been rightly rejected and the post from which petitioner’s father was allowed to take retirement on the ground of incapacitation since is no more available, no illegality or irregularity can be found with such rejection.

¶20

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition, is of the view that since petitioner has already attained the age of 52 years, no fruitful purpose will be solved, if any direction will be issued to re-consider the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Hence, it is open for the petitioner to make a claim for compensation before Opp. Party No.3. It is observed that if any such application will be moved before O.P. No.3 within a period of 3(three) weeks

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

hence, Opp. Party No.3 shall take a lawful decision on the same within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of such application with due communication to the petitioner.

¶24

6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶26

Basudev

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 10-Jul-2026 11:19:47

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

Signature Not Verified

Prahallad Swain v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahallad Swain v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puspanjali Moharana Vs State of Orissa

Jagannath Panda Vs State of Odisha

Puspanjali Moharana Vs State and Ors.

Purna Ch.Tripathy Vs Union of India andORS.

Pruthiraj Pattnayak Vs Union of India.

Swarup R.Patnaik Vs P.O.Octdms to Govt.