p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO.22391 OF 2024 Anurag Bouk …. Petitioner Mr. N. Rath, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp.Parties Mr. J.K. Ray, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD ORDER Order No. 02. 19.08.2025 Petitioner, who has suffered rejection of his claim for appointment on compassionate ground, vide order dated 26.07.2024, is grieving against the same before the Writ Court. 2. Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that his father, a Physical Education Teacher (PET), having died in harness on 24.12.2006, his client was just a minor, his date of birth being 03.05.1995 and therefore, under the extant rules, he had applied for compassion appointment on 06.07.2015, i.e., well within a period of three years prescribed under Rule 9(7) of The Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990. That being the position, coupled with distress certificate issued by the competent authority, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and a direction for compassionate appointment be issued. He also draws attention of the Court to the Apex Court decision in State of Orissa v. Jita Luha, 2025 INSC 813, in support of his contention that the State Government had undertaken before the Apex Court to revisit all such applications for compassionate p. 2 appointments keeping in view the rule position as on the death in harness. 3. Learned ASC-Mr. Ray and learned AGA-Mr. Jee opposed the petition contending that the impugned order cannot be faltered, inasmuch as the invocation of Rule 9 (7) is subject to the condition that there was no other candidate entitled to a compassionate appointment during the minority of the Petitioner herein; it is not the case of the Petitioner that his mother was not entitled to compassionate appointment and therefore, even if the mother has given the No Objection Certificate (NOC), there is no warrant for interference of this Court. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petitioner papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons: 4.1. There is no dispute as to the foundational facts, namely, Petitioner’s father died on 24.12.2006; Petitioner having been born on 03.05.1995 had applied for compassionate appointment on 06.07.2015,it is well within three years contemplated under Rule 9 (7) of the subject Rules and consistent with the direction of the Apex Court in Jita Luha supra, the rules that obtained at the time of date of the bread winner in harness are to govern the claims of the kind. 4.2. The vehement contention of both learned ASC & learned AGA that nothing is stated in the subject application for compassionate appointment about Petitioner’s mother’s disentitlement and therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to have his case considered on merits for compassionate appointment, does not require deeper examination at the hands of this Court, no counter having been filed by the State in that regard. That apart, the State itself had undertaken to revisit applications of the kind, as has been reflected in the judgment in Jita Luha supra and p. 3 therefore, that exercise has to be undertaken by the jurisdictional authorities. 4.3. There is one more lacuna in the impugned order; the District Collector is the competent authority to issue distress certificate and the person, who has to consider application for compassionate appointment is the appointing authority, which the District Collector is not. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be voided on the ground of lack of competence as well. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned rejection order dated 26.07.2024 at Annexure-7; matter is remitted to the portals of OP No.4 for consideration afresh in the light of Jita Luha case supra, Notification No. 11771 dated 04.04.2025, and also the rules that obtained when Petitioner’s father breathed his last. This exercise has to be undertaken and accomplished within a period of eight weeks. Now, no costs. Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge Madhusmita