p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.280 of 2024 State of Odisha and others …. Appellants Represented by Adv.- Mr. S.B. Panda, AGA -versus- Smita Berukau …. Respondent Represented by Adv.- Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO ORDER 10.07.2025 (I) The subject matter of this Writ Appeal is substantially similar to the one we treated in W.P. (C) No.15193 of 2022 (Debasish Panda v. District Judge, Ganjam) decided on 23.06.2025, whereby consensually reprieve has been granted in a particular way. The relevant portion of the said order whereby relief has been accorded reads as under: 4. “Be the above orders as they are. 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 : “2. In the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules,2020 (hereinafter referred to as the “said rules”), in rule Order No. 01. p. 2 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.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits and we agree that his clients will be satisfied if their case is considered under the new legal regime as reflected in the subject notification. Learned Additional Government Advocate too agrees that the case of petitioners shall be considered under the amended Rules within an outer limit of three 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 petitioners are hereby voided. 6. In view of the above, petition is disposed of. 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 ₹1,000/- to each of the petitioners for delay per day for the first month and ₹2,000/- for the period of next following.” (II) Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the like cases should be decided alike and therefore whatever relief has been accorded to p. 3 the petitioners in the cognate case has to be extended to his client as well, the arguable differences if any paling into insignificance. We agree with this submission too. In the above circumstances, this Writ Appeal is also disposed of extending the same benefit to the appellant mutatis mutandis. Now, no costs ( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge ( M.S. Sahoo ) Judge Prasant Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT