Karan Karal Vs the Learned Dist. and Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda

was working as Sheristadar in the Civil Court, Jharsuguda and he expired on 27.01.2016. The present petitioner filed an application seeking appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on 21.08.2018. The committee constituted under the Odisha Civil

¶13

Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2016 examined the case of the petitioner and on evaluation, awarded 55 points out of 100 points. The committee was of the view that the application filed by the petitioner suffers a delay of 2 years, 7 months of the death of his father. As per sub-rule (6) of Rule-9 of the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, the application ought to have been filed within one year from the date of death of the Government servant. In the exceptional cases, the limitation prescribed under sub-rule may be condoned by the Government in the concerned administrative department. Eventually, vide order dated 07.03.2020 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda, the application of the petitioner has been turned down on two grounds, which is found mentioned in the penultimate paragraph of the order itself. For convenience of ready reference, the grounds of rejection read thus:

¶14

“(i) The application has not been filed on the stipulated period as per Rule-9 of sub-rule (6). Further in this case, there is a delay of more than 12 months. (ii) The applicant has not passed the test in Oriya equivalent to any standard as per Rule-6(4)(d) of the Orissa District and Sub-ordinate Courts Non-judicial Staff Services (Method of Recruitment and Condition of Service), Rules, 2008 as amended in 2010.”

¶15

Page 2 of 10

¶16

The Petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned District Judge. Hence, he has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking following reliefs:

¶17

i) To quash the impugned order dtd. 07.03.2020 (Annexure-6) of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda.

¶18

ii) To direct the Opp. Parties to appoint the petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in accordance with Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule 1990 in any post on compassionate ground within a time limit considering his application.

¶19

2. Heard Mr. Umakant Sahoo, learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶20

and Mr. Jayant Kumar Bal, learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite party.

¶21

3. The principal issue highlighted by learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar is that two reasons for which his application has been turned down by the opposite party are completely misplaced. However, at this stage, he prefers not to embark upon those issues in view of the recent amendment brought in the Rule.

¶22

Page 3 of 10

¶23

He further submitted that the petitioner was a minor at the time

¶24

of the death of his father and as per Rule-9(7) of the Odisha District and Subordinate Court's Non Judicial Staff Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008 (Amendment Rules, 2010), which stipulates that:

¶25

"If at the time of death of the Government servant, there is ward who is minor and who alone is available in the family of the deceased Government servant for employment, he/she shall apply for job under these rules on attaining the age of eighteen years and in no case beyond three years from the date of attaining the age of eighteen years."

¶26

The father of the Petitioner, namely, Saroj Kumar Karal, who

¶27

was Ex-Sheristadar of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Jharsuguda, died on 27th January, 2016, and the application of the Petitioner was filed on 21st August, 2018. Hence, it is contended that the application was filed within the extendable time.

¶28

Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner passed Odia as a single subject from the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha. Certificate to that effect is available at Annexure-5 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, these materials were not taken into consideration by

¶29

Page 4 of 10

¶30

the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda while considering his application for rehabilitation appointment.

¶31

4. On perusal of the certificate at Annexure-5, it appears that the said certificate, which discloses that the Petitioner passed Odia as a single subject, was issued on 8th December, 2020, which is much after rejection of his application for appointment under the Rule. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, submits that the Petitioner had already passed M.E. standard in Odia subject, as required under Rule 6(4)(d) of the Odisha District and Subordinate Court's Non Judicial Staff Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also apprised this Court of the same, and such submission has been recorded in the order dated 09.10.2025.

¶32

5. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to this Court’s order dated 23.06.2025 in W.P.(C) No.15193 of 2022 and submits that the present writ petition is squarely covered by the aforementioned order and therefore the same may also be disposed of on similar terms, granting a fresh opportunity

¶33

Page 5 of 10

¶34

to the petitioner for consideration of his application under the new legal regime.

¶35

By virtue of notification dated 4th April, 2025, a suitable amendment has been effected to the provisions of Rule 2 of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020. The amended provision to Rule 6 of the said Rules has the following text:

¶36

"2. In the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the "said rules"), in rule 6,- (i) for sub-rule (9), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:- "(9) (a) All pending applications, relating to death of Government employee prior to the date of commencement of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 shall be dealt in accordance with the rules prevailing on the date of death of Government employee for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme: Provided that in case the death of Government employee occurred on or after commencement of the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2016 and before commencement of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020, shall be governed by the provisions of the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990."

¶37

6. The moot question arises for consideration is that in the factual

¶38

scenario of the present case whether the amended Rule, 2020 is applicable in the case of the petitioner or the earlier Rule of 1990 is applicable. This question came for consideration in many other

¶39

Page 6 of 10

¶40

occasions by way of writ petition. In one of such case, i.e., in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethi vs. State of Odisha and others , arising out of W.A. No.367 of 2021, the question arose, if an application for rehabilitation assistance was filed before amendment of 2020 while 1990 Rule was prevailing, “whether the benefit of amendment can be extended to such applicant merely because their application has been pending and during pendency, 1990 Rule suffered amendment”. This was negatively answered by this Court in the said Writ Appeal Malaya Nananda Sethi (supra). The matter was taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition [Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2022 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 936/2022)]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the order vide judgment dated 26.10.2021 passed in W.A. No.367 of 2021 (Malaya Nanda Sethisupra) and held the appointment of the petitioner under the scheme should not be refused in the guise of non-applicability of the amended rule, 2020 merely because the petitioner had applied for rehabilitation appointment under the erstwhile OCS Rehabilitation Assistance Rule, 1990. It is because of the lethargic and bureaucratic approach the application remained pending for a longer time and in the meantime,

¶41

Page 7 of 10

¶42

the amendment has taken place, the benefit of amendment must be given to the petitioner. The prevailing Rule at the time of consideration of the application shall only be applied.

¶43

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the Opposite

¶44

Party submits that he has no objection to the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In view of the amended provision, the case of the petitioner may be considered afresh.

¶45

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that the petitioner would be satisfied if his case is considered under the amended legal regime brought into force by notification dated 4th April, 2025. Learned Additional Government Advocate fairly submits that the case of the petitioner can be considered under the amended provisions of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules within a reasonable time frame. Both sides further agreed that while undertaking such consideration, all contentions of the parties shall remain open to be examined by the competent authority in accordance with law. Such a course, in the opinion of this Court, would meet the

¶46

Page 8 of 10

¶47

ends of justice. Since the matter is to be reconsidered afresh, the earlier rejection of the petitioner’s claim shall not stand in the way of such fresh consideration.

¶48

9. We expect the competent authority to strictly comply with the direction of this Court and decide the fresh application to be filed by the petitioner within the time frame fixed by this Court without any further delay, particularly because of the reason that the petitioner has applied for the benefit of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme as on 21.08.2018 and aggrieved by the rejection order, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition in the year 2023.

¶49

10. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner under the amended provisions of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, as referred to above, and to pass and decide the same on or before 30^th of June 2026 in accordance with law subject to filing of a fresh application by the petitioner on or before 30.03.2026 before the appropriate/concerned authority along with a certified copy of this order.

¶50

Page 9 of 10

¶51

11. The Writ Petition stands succeeded.

¶52

(Sibo Sankar Mishra) Judge

¶53

I agree

¶54

(Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge

¶55

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 11^th of March, 2026/Subhasis Mohanty

¶56

Signature Not Verified

¶57

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 20-Mar-2026 13:41:45 Page 10 of 10

Karan Karal v. the Learned Dist. and Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Karal v. the Learned Dist. and Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda

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

Smt.Baijayanti Biswal Vs State of Orissa

Ramani Chetti Vs State of Odisha

The Dristi College of Nursing, Khurda Vs State of Odisha

State of Odisha Vs Pradipta Kumar Pati

State of Odisha Vs Gyaneswar Rath

Nakula Singh Vs State of Orissa