Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 7093 of 2020 Jayashree Barik ..... Petitioner Mr. P.V. Balakrishna, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 08.01.2025 Order No. 03 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. P.V. Balakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased enough to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why: (i) The impugned order vide Annexure-7 shall not be quashed; and (ii) The application vide Annexure-5 & 8 shall not be consider and direction be given to appoint the petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme within a stipulated time; And pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as would deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case; Page 2 of 3. And for this act of kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme was rejected vide the impugned communication dtd.22.02.2013 under Annexure-7 on the ground that Petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased employee. 4.1. It is contended that the issue with regard to claim of married daughter to get the benefit of appointment is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Khirabadibala Behera Vs. Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack & Ors. 4.2. It is also contended that placing reliance on the said decision of this Court in the case of Kshirabadibala Behera, similar claim was allowed by this Court vide order dtd.01.02.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 1628 of 2024. Stand taken in Para 4 & 6 of the said order reads as follows:- “4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the issue with regard to extension of benefit in favour of married daughter is no more res integra in view of the decision passed by this Court on 24.08.2022 in W.P.(C) No.14945 of 2015 in the case of Kshirabadi Bala Behera Vrs. Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttak and Others. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition quash the order dated 28.12.2023 under Annexure-12. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to O.P. No.3 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of appointment in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Kshirabadi Bala Behera as cited (supra). Such a fresh decision be taken Page 3 of 3. within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.” 5. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate also does not dispute the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the decision rendered in the case of Kshirabadibala Behera. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made and taking into account the ground of rejection of Petitioner’s claim that she is the married daughter of deceased employee, this Court placing reliance on the decision in the case of Kshirabadibala Behera, is inclined to quash the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim so made by Opp. Party No. 2 on 22.02.2013 under Annexure-7. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the Judgment in the case of Kshirabadibala Behera as cited (supra). Such a fresh decision be taken within a period of two (2) months with due intimation to the Petitioner. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Designation: Sr. Stenographer