Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.9319 of 2024 Kusal Chandra Hial ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Sushanta Kumar Mishra -versus- State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - Mr. C.M.Singh, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 09.02.2026 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present writ application, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the rejection order vide letter No.4351 dated 08.09.2023 at Annexure-7 issued by the D.E.O., Nabarangpur- Opposite Party No.3. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the Opposite Party to give appointment to the Petitioner against suitable post. Pursuant to his application under reference letter No.846 dated 18.04.2018 issued by the Collector, Nabarangpur under Annexure-4 to the writ application within a stipulated period of time. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that Page 2 of 5. the father of the Petitioner who was working in on unaided primary school died in harness on 11.07.1984. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground to the Collector, Nabarangpur on 20.10.2014. After due scrutiny of the application of the Petitioner, the Collector, Nabarangpur forwarded the application of the Petitioner to the D.E.O., Nabarangpur on 18.04.2018. The D.E.O., Nabarangpur prepared a list of eligible candidates for appointment on compassionate ground under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Such list was communicated to the concerned B.E.O. and a copy of such letter has been filed as Annexure-5 to the present writ application. Referring to the Annexure-5 letter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the list of the approved candidates for appointment under the R.A. Scheme includes a name of the Petitioner and the name of the Petitioner appears against Serial No.29 of such list. 5. He further contended that although the name of the Petitioner was recommended by the D.E.O. to the concerned B.E.O. for his appointment, however no action was taken on such recommendation and the Petitioner was never given appointment to a suitable post on compassionate ground. Finally, vide order dated 08.09.2023, the D.E.O., Nabarangpur rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for appointment of compassionate ground. Such letter has been filed at Annexure-7 to the writ application and the same is the subject matter of the challenge in the present writ application. 6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the judgment by a Division bench of this Court in State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Manas Ranjan Patra & Anr. decided in W.P.(C) No.13982 of 2014 vide judgment dated 20.09.2016. He Page 3 of 5. further argued that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in Manas Ranjan Patra’s case (supra). Learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred to order passed in Shri Niranjan Paikray vs. State of Odisha & Ors. decided in W.P.(C) No.24376 of 2012 vide order dated 26.04.2017. Further, referring to Niranjan Paikray’s case (supra), learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that a single judge bench of this Court has disposed of the writ application by directing the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the law laid down in Manas Ranjan Patra’s case (supra) and to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner in a time bound manner. He further submitted that after due consideration of the case of Niranjan Paikray (supra), the Opposite Parties have already given appointment on compassionate ground. In view of the aforesaid legal position, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the order of rejection at Annexure-7 passed in the case of the present Petitioner is unsustainable in law and that the same is also contrary to the ratio laid down in Manas Ranjan Patra’s case (supra). 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the Opposite Party No.3-D.E.O., Nabarangpur has filed the counter affidavit to the present writ application. In the counter affidavit, the D.E.O., Nabarangpur has taken a specific stand that the father of the Petitioner was appointed as a teacher in a non-government primary school on 01.04.1964 and while he was continuing as a teacher under the Tentulikhunti Block, he died in harness on 11.07.1984 and that the school in question was a non-government primary school. He further submitted that all non-government primary school teachers were declared as government servant w.e.f. 05.09.1989. As such, at the time when the father of the Petitioner died, he was not a Page 4 of 5. government servant and he was not covered under the resolution of the Government. It was also contended that at the time of the death of the father of the Petitioner, the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance Rule, 1990) was not in force. The aforesaid rule which provides for appointment on compassionate ground came into force of the year 1990. Thus, the Petitioner is not covered under the O.C.S. (R.A) Rules, 1990. The Learned counsel for the State also raised objection with regard to the discrepancies in the name of the father of the Petitioner as has been reflected in his application. On such ground, learned counsel for the State supported the rejection of the petitioner’s application by D.E.O., Nabarangpur vide order dated 08.09.2023 at Annexure-7 and on such ground, it was argued that the present writ application, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties, on a careful examination of their respective submission, further taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in Manas Ranjan Patra’s case (supra), this Court is of the view that the case of the Petitioner is similar to Manas Ranjan Patra’s case (supra). Further, this Court observes that the name of the Petitioner was recommended by the Collector, Nabarangpur to the D.E.O., Nabarangpur to consider his case for an appointment under the R.A. Scheme which is evident from the letter dated 28.12.2020 at Annexure-5 to the writ application. Despite such recommendation having been made, after due scrutiny, the prayer of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the Opposite Parties. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the Petitioner requires reconsideration in terms of the law laid down by the Division Bench Page 5 of 5. in Manas Ranjan Patra’s case (supra). As such, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned rejection order dated 08.09.2023 at Annexure-7. Accordingly, the same is set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 to consider the case of the Petitioner afresh in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Manas Ranjan Patra’s case (supra). Let the case of the Petitioner be considered afresh in terms of the aforesaid direction within a period of two months from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. The final decisions so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi