Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.25815 of 2024 Jitendra Prasad Naik ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. – Mr. Abhaya Kumar Parida -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 19.02.2026 Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application and issue Rule NISI to the opp. parties calling upon them to show cause as to why the impugned decision of the Screening Committee dated 19.07.2022 under Annexure-3 shall not be quashed and further why the opp. parties shall not be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for Page 2 of 5. compassionate appointment under the old rules i.e. OCS (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy Versus State of Odisha, reported in (2022) 2 OLR 1 (SC) within a stipulated period. And on their failing to show cause or showing insufficient cause, the said Rule be made absolute by issuing appropriator writ(s). And pass such further order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the mother of the Petitioner, namely, one Hemalata Naik, who was working as a Peon under Opposite Party No.2, died in harness on 22.11.2017 leaving behind her legal heirs including the present Petitioner. He further contended that after the death of his mother, the Petitioner submitted an application under OCS (R.A.) Rules, 1990 on 05.11.2018 before the Opposite Party No.2 along with requisite documents for appointment on compassionate ground. In the meantime, the District Welfare Officer, Kalahandi, Opposite Party No.3 requested the Tahasildar Kalahandi to ascertain the annual income of the family of the deceased Government employee in the year 2019. 5. While this was the position, the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 came into force w.e.f. 27.02.2020. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that although the Petitioner is governed by the set of Rules of the year 1990, however, his case has been evaluated by applying the provisions of the OCS Rules, 2020. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the proceeding of the Screening Committee held on Page 3 of 5. 19.07.2022 at Annexure-3, contended that it is crystal clear from such proceeding that the application of the Petitioner was evaluated under the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 and consequently the same has been rejected. 6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others: reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1; as well as the judgments of this Court in Suchitra Bal v. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 & batch decided on 27.06.2023); in State of Odisha and others vs. Bindusagar Samantaray (W.A.No.810 of 2021 & batch decided on 25.09.2023); and in Biswajit Swain v. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 decided on 31.10.2023), stated before this Court that the law is well settled that, if the deceased Government employee has died prior to the amendment Rules of the year 2020 came into force, then application submitted by the legal heirs of the deceased Government employee are to be considered under the old rules. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that after judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above noted case, the State Government has amended the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 thereby bring necessary amendment for consideration of all pending applications under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. As such, it was contended that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the Notification dated 04.04.2025 of the G.A. & P.G. Department, Government of Odisha. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned rejection order at Annexure-3 Page 4 of 5. thereby rejecting the application of the Petitioner by applying the 2020 Rules is unsustainable in law. 8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the case of the Petitioner was duly considered by the Screening and Scrutiny Committee. Upon due evaluation of the application of the Petitioner, it was found that the Petitioner has failed to secure the minimum marks as is required under the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020. He further contended that a report has been received from the Tahasildar, Kalahandi which reveals that the condition of the deceased family is not distressful. Further, while referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2 & 3, learned counsel for the State contended that the case of the Petitioner has been duly evaluated, and that since he was not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground under the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020, his application has been rightly rejected by the Opposite Parties. As such, it was contended that the impugned rejection order does not suffer from any illegality. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, learned counsel for the State contended that the writ petition preferred by the Petitioner is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed. 9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties as well as the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents filed from both the sides, this Court observes that the Petitioner being aggrieved by rejection of his application for appointment on compassionate ground has approached this Court by filing the present application. On perusal of the impugned rejection order at Annexure-3, this Court observes that the case of the Petitioner was considered under the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020. It is not disputed Page 5 of 5. that the mother of the Petitioner died much prior to the new rules came into force i.e. on 22.11.2017. In view of the settled position of law as has been laid down by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, further taking into consideration the Notification dated 04.04.2025 of the G.A. & P.G. Department, Government of Odisha, this Court is of the view that the case of the Petitioner should have been considered under the OCS (R.A.) Rules, 1990 instead of the new rules of the 2020. 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis of fact as well as law, this Court is of the view that the impugned order at Annexure-3, so far as it relates to the present Petitioner, is unsustainable in law. Hence, the same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2 to reconsider the case of the Petitioner in terms of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 read with G.A. & P.G. Department Notification dated 04.04.2025 within two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. The application of the Petitioner shall be considered in terms of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. The final decision so taken on the application of the Petitioner, be communicated to him forthwith. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 19th February, 2026/Debasis Aech, Secretary