p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.1400 of 2024 State of Odisha and others …. Appellants Represented By Adv. – Mr. J.K. Bal, AGA -versus- Prabhat Ranjan Behera …. Respondent Represented By Adv. – Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO ORDER 06.01.2026 (Hybrid Mode) I.A. No.3652 of 2024 1. The appellants-State challenges the order dated 17.10.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.33745 of 2023. The appeal has been filed after brooking reported delay of 187 days. 2. Having gone through the reasons stated in the application explaining the delay in approaching this Court, we are satisfied that adequate reasons have been shown for condonation of delay. Otherwise it is brought to our notice that similar writ appeals have been disposed of in view of the amendment brought in Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 in the year 2025, by coordinate Bench. 3. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. is favoured and disposed of. Order No. 02. p. 2 W.A. No.1400 of 2024 4. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellants–State challenging order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.33745 of 2023. The operative portion of the order dated 17.10.2023 is reproduced herein: “xxx xxx xxx 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the application at the stage of admission by setting aside the impugned letter/order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the Deputy Secretary to Government of Odisha, Department of Women & Child Development and Mission Shakti under Annexure-14 and the order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the Opposite Party No.4-District Welfare Officer, Ganjam, Chatrapur under Annexuere-16 and further remand the matter back to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the application of the Petitioner afresh in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy’s case (supra), Debabrata Tiwari’s case (supra), Suchitra Bal’s case and Bindusagar Samantaray’s case (supra); and also taking into consideration the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee dated 27.6.2019 communicated to the Government vide letter dated 14.8.2019 under Annexure-7 Series to the writ petition, and the Petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Party No.1 along with certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today. On appearance of the Petitioner, Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner and dispose of the matter by passing a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Any decision so taken on the same shall be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of ten days thereafter. xxx xxx xxx” 5. Both the sides in all fairness submit that now vide notification dated 4th April, 2025 a suitable amendment is effected to the provisions of Rule 2 to Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020. The amended provision to Rule 6 of the said Rules has the following text : p. 3 “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.” 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits and we agree that his client will be satisfied if his case is considered under the new legal regime as reflected in the subject notification. Learned Additional Government Advocate too agrees that the case of respondent shall be considered under the amended Rules within an outer limit of five months. Both the sides agree that all contentions need to be kept open for being treated by the competent authority under the amended provisions of the subject extant rules. This is fair. It hardly needs to be stated that since the case would be considered afresh, all records that effected rejection of claim of the respondent are hereby voided. 7. In view of the above, appeal is disposed of. The respondent/writ petitioner shall submit certified copy of this order along with all the relevant documents before the appellant no.3- p. 4 Collector & District Magistrate, Ganjam obtaining necessary acknowledgement with date and seal from the said authority in that regard. The Collector and District Magistrate, Ganjam shall deal with the representation/application of the respondent/writ petitioner by himself or shall forward the same to the appropriate authority for necessary action as indicated above. We make it clear that in the event matter is not decided as undertaken before us within the specified period, the competent authority who has to take the decision shall pay ₹500/- to the respondent for delay per day for the first month and ₹1,000/- for the period next following. Now, no costs. (Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge jyostna