IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.10334 of 2024 Manoj Kumar Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. S. Swain, Adv, -versus- State of Odisha & Another …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA. COROM: HON’BLE THE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 31.03.2026 7. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: It is therefore, humbly prayed that, under the above circumstances, the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue RULE NISI, calling upon the Opposite Parties to file show cause and if the Opposite Parties failed to file show cause or filed insufficient cause on perusal of causes shown made he said RULE absolute and be further pleased to: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order quashing order dtd.12.11.2022 vide Annexure-8 and letter dtd.08.01.2016 under Annexure-9 passed by the Collector, Balasore as wrong, illegal and otherwise bad in law. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Opp. Parties more particularly the Collector, Balasore-Opp. Party No.2 to consider the Petitioner’s case for appointment under the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 within as stipulated period as fixed by this Hon’ble Court. And/or pass any other order(s) as would be deemed fit and proper for the ends of justice; And for this act of kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray. 4. It is contended that on of death of his father on 14.07.2015, Petitioner being the son of the deceased employee made the application to get the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Such application made by the Petitioner was forwarded by the Office of Collector, Balasore vide letter dt.23.11.2015 under Annexure-6. However, when no decision was taken on such claim of the Petitioner, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.22283 of 2022. This Court vide order dt.07.09.2022 under Annexure-7, when directed Opp. party No.2 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim in accordance with law, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dt.12.11.2022 under Annexure-8. 4.1. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that by holding that Petitioner’s brother is in private service and by adding his income to the annual income of the deceased family, so specified under the OCS (R.A) Amendment Rule, 2008, claim of the Petitioner was rejected. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner’s brother is in private service, the income earned by him could not have been added while calculating the annual income of the family and rejecting the claim of the Petitioner on the ground that the annual income exceeds the Permissible limit as per OCS (RA) Amended Rules, 2008. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-8, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Even though notice of the Writ Petition has been issued since 29.04.2024, but no counter affidavit has been field as yet. However, basing on the materials available on record, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that since Petitioner himself disclosed about the employment of his brother in a private organisation and by adding the brother’s income to the income of the family, the same since exceeded the permissible limit of Rs.72,000/-, which was the prescribed limit to get the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-8. It is accordingly contended that no interference is called for with regard to the impugned rejection. 6. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the Income Certificate produced by the Petitioner vide Annexure-4, the annual income of the family was reflected at Rs.43,000/-. But by adding the income of his brother, who is serving in a private organisation and by holding that the annual income exceeds Rs.72,000/-, claim of the Petitioner was rejected.It is further contended that in view of the recent notification issued by the Government on 04.04.2025, Petitioner’s claim is required to be considered afresh, under the provisions contained under OCS (R.A) Rules, 1990. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that on the death of the Petitioner’s father on 14.07.2015, Petitioner made the application to get the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, within the stipulated time period. However, Petitioner’s claim was rejected, pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court under Annexure-7, vide the impugned order dt.12.11.2022 under Annexure-8, on the ground that the annual income of the Petitioner’s family exceeds Rs.72,000/-, 7.1. It is found while calculating the annual income at more than Rs.72,000/-, income of the Petitioner’s brother, who is serving in a private organisation, has been added, in addition to the income reflected in the Income Certificate issued under Annexure-4. 7.2. This Court placing reliance on the provisions contained under OCS (R.A) Rules, 1990, is of the view that since Petitioner’s brother is not in Government employment or in employment in any public sector, such income of his brother could not have been added to the annual income of the family and consequentially, rejecting his claim by holding that, his annual income exceeds Rs.72,000/-. 7.3. In view of such illegality and irregularity, which is apparent on the face of the impugned order, this Court is inclined to quash the same and while quashing order dt.12.11.2022 so issued under Annexure-8, this Court directs Opp. party No.2 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim, in terms of the provisions contained under OCS (RA) Amendment Rules, 2025. 7.4. While considering the claim of the Petitioner, income, if any of his brother, who is employed in a private organisation, shall not be taken as the income of the family and a fresh decision be taken accordingly. This Court directs Opp. party No.2 to take a fresh decision within a period of 2(two) moths from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita