IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.11968 of 2025 Ashok Kumar Biswal …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.- Mr. A.K. Mishra, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.- Mr. D. Lenka, AGA. CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD ORDER 24.09.2025 The short grievance of the petitioner is as to rejection of his application for appointment on compassionate ground, the bread winer of the family, namely, his father having died in harness on 27.01.2021. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that some delay was brooked in making application for compassionate appointment, is true; however, by that time COVID-19 pandemic had started shading its dark shadow on the lives of people; epidemic of the kind is treated as a ground for condonation of delay, even by the Apex Court in a slew of decisions; that being the position the rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment is unjustified. Lastly, he also notifies to the Court the amendment of Orissa Civil Service Rehabilitation Assistance Rules, 2020, vide notification dated 04.04.2025, and therefore, the rejection needs to be set at naught with a direction to consider the matter afresh at the hands of OP Nos.1 & 2. Order No. 04. 3. Learned AGA Mr. Lenka appearing for the OPs opposes the petition contending that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, the same being an apology to the principle of equality enacted in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; when Rules provide by the way of exception for appointment, the conditions prescribed by them have to be strictly complied with and that having not happened, rejection of the claim cannot be faltered. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the petition. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court finds force in the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as above. Very importantly the amendment of the Rules, vide 2025 amendment dated 04.04.2025, also supports the case of petitioner. It hardly needs to be stated that the COVID-19 pandemic is treated by the Apex Court as a lull period for all practical purposes and there was a specific direction to extend the limitation period in matters like this. After all, the Rules of the kind are promulgated by the State for the purpose of mitigating hardship of the family when its bread winer dies in harness. Compassion is not unconstitutional. The justice of the case warrants that the impugned order be set at naught and matter be remanded for consideration afresh in a time bound way. In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 made by District Education Officer vide Annexure-4; matter is remanded for consideration afresh at the hands of District Education Officer, Gajapati within a period of eight (8) weeks, all contentions of the parties having been kept open. It is made clear that the application shall be deemed to have been made within the period of limitation. It is open to answering OP to solicit any information or documents from the side of the petitioner, as required for taking a decision on the application for compassionate appointment. However, in that guise delay shall not be brooked. Now, no costs. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge Prasant