IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.466 of 2024 State of Odisha & Others …. Appellants Mr.U.C. Behura, AGA -versus- Nirmal Kumar Patra …. Respondent Mr.Manoranjan Padhi, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ORDER 28.01.2026 This intra-Court appeal calls in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 08.06.2023 whereby respondent’s W.P.(C) No.18412 of 2023, having been favoured, the following relief has been granted: “Considering the submissions made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court directs opposite party No.3 to take a decision on the above noted petition in the light of the case of Malayananda Sethi within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and communicate the result of such exercise to the petitioner…” 2. Learned AGA Mr.Behura vehemently argues that the claim for compassionate appointment itself was time barred in terms of Rule 9(7) of the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule, 1990 and therefore, this aspect, having not been adverted to by the learned Single Order No. 05. Judge, a grave error occurs in the impugned order and therefore, the same is liable to be voided. 3. Learned counsel Mr.Padhi appearing for the respondent opposes the appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter, inasmuch as the period of limitation for staking claim for appointment on compassionate ground is three years reckoned from the date of attaining majority by the son/daughter, if they were sole minors when the death in harness happened. 5. Admittedly, the employee, who was working as Police Havildar, died in harness on 07.10.1997 leaving behind his widow, one daughter & one son, who is the respondent in the appeal. The son was minor at the time of death of his father is true. However, he attained majority in 2006 and therefore, at the latest, he could have applied for compassionate appointment only in 2009; assuming that it is six years and not three years, he could have applied for compassionate appointment only in 2012. However, the claim was staked on 30.06.2015. A time barred claim cannot be favoured as rightly submitted by the learned AGA. Page 3 of 3 For ease of reference; the text of Rule 9(7) of 1990 Rules is reproduced hereunder: “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.” 6. These Rules have been promulgated under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and therefore, they have statutory force as if they have been promulgated under some particular statute. The Rule is not put in challenge. The text and context of the said Rule would show that it is mandatory. Law does not come to the aid of sleepy and tardy. In the above circumstances, the appeal having been favoured, the impugned order dated 08.06.2023 passed by learned Single Judge is set at naught and respondent’s W.P.(C) No.18412 of 2023 is dismissed. Costs made easy. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Basu Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY