Satyabrata Behera Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the StateOpposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶16

By filing the present writ application, the Petitioner has sought for the following relief:

¶17

“In the circumstances stated above, it is humbly

¶18

prayed that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/direction directing Opposite Party No. 2 to grant formal approval for the appointment of the Petitioner against the vacant posts existing in Rimuli College, Rimuli, Keonjhar, as on 31-12-2025 under the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, pursuant to the recommendations already forwarded by

¶19

Page 1 of 4.

¶20

Opposite Party No. 5 vide Letter Nos.735 and 050/RCR/2026 dated 10-07-2025 and 17-01-2026 respectively under Annexure-5 (Series), within a stipulated period of four weeks;

¶21

And direct Opposite Party No. 5 to issue the formal appointment order in favour of the Petitioner immediately upon receipt of such approval from Opposite Party No. 2, and allow him to join his duties in Opposite party College;

¶22

And further be pleased to pass any appropriate order/orders as may deemed fit and proper.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the father of the Petitioner, namely Krushna Chandra Behera, who was working as a Librarian under Opposite Party No.5 died in harness on 23.06.2017 after leaving behind his legal heirs. After the death of the deceased government employee, the Petitioner being one of the legal heirs submitted an application under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 as amended up to the year 2016 for being appointed on compassionate ground on 20.04.2018 and such application was within the period of limitation as prescribed in the rules. Further contended that the Opposite Parties sat over the application of the Petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground.

¶24

Being aggrieved by such inaction of the opposite parties, the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.27596 of 2024. A coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the abovenoted writ application vide order dated 12.12.2024 by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.5 for redressal of his grievance by filing a representation with a corresponding direction to the Opposite Party No.5 to consider the same within a period of six weeks. Since the order passed by a

¶25

Page 2 of 4.

¶26

coordinate Bench was not carried out, the Petitioner was compelled to file CONTC No.1690 of 2025 which was also disposed of by directing the opposite parties to comply with the order passed within a month.

¶27

While this was the position, the Opposite Party No.5 forwarded the application of the Petitioner to the Opposite Party No.2 for verification and grant of approval for consideration of the case of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground vide letter dated 10.07.2025. In the meantime, the Opposite Party No.3 has already issued a distress certificate in favor of the Petitioner's family and recommended the case of the Petitioner for appointment after due compliance of the instruction of Government of Odisha vide letter dated 07.01.2026. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Opposite Party No.5 has already submitted the case of the Petitioner along with all requisite documents including the distress certificate to the Opposite Party No.2 to grant approval for appointment of the Petitioner on compassionate ground vide letter dated 17.01.2026. Despite such steps having been taken by the Opposite Party No.5, the Opposite Party No.2 has not taken any final decision. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Party No.2, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

¶28

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that he has no specific objection in the matter. However, on a careful examination of the pleadings contained in the writ application it appears that the application of the Petitioner has been forwarded to the office of the Opposite Party No.2 seeking approval. He further submitted that in the event such application is

¶29

Page 3 of 4.

¶30

still pending before the Opposite Party No.2 for grant of approval, he will have no objection if this court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to consider such grant of approval as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶31

Considering the submission made by learned counsels for both sides and on careful examination of the background facts and further taking note of the communications between the Opposite Parties with regard to the appointment of the Petitioner on compassionate ground, this Court is of the view that the present writ application can very well be disposed of at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and take a final decision on the request of the Opposite Party No.5 with regard to grant of approval within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. Pursuant to the order is likely to be passed by the Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.5 shall take necessary follow-up steps and communicate the final decision to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receiving the order from the Opposite Party No.2.

¶32

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶33

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶34

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶35

Anil

¶36

Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4.

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Mar-2026 18:36:32

Satyabrata Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyabrata Behera 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

Burra Sitamma Vs Prasant Kumar Nayak

Sidhartha Ranasingh Vs Sankar Prasad Satapathy

Abdhesh Singh Vs Srabani Sarangi

Atasikusuma Kar@Patri Vs Chandra Sekhar Patri

Himansu Sekhar Misra Vs State of Odisha

Dondapati Yamini Vs State of Orissa