Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6201 of 2025 Sitakanta Satapathy ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Satyabrata Satapathy -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 18.05.2026 Order No. 03. 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-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner has made the following prayer:- “In the facts and circumstances of case, the humble petitioner fervently prays this Hon'ble Court to be graciously pleased to issue notice to the Opp. parties, call for relevant records and after hearing Counsel of parties issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the impugned Office Order No.22888 dtd.20.12.2024 under Annexure-1 & commanding the Opp. party No. 3 particularly to Page 2 of 5. the District Education Officer, Ganjam to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner forthwith under OCS (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule, 1990 in terms of judgment rendered in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy Vs. State of Odisha and others (Civil Appeal No. 4103 /2022, decided on 20.05.2022 and in the case of Biswajit Swain Vs. State of Odisha in W.P (C) No.5214 of 2021 disposed of on 31.10.2023 within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. And/or pass such other order/orders, direction/ directions so as to give complete relief to the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the father of the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Classical Teacher in Panchayat High School, Badangi (GM) in the district of Ganjam. Such appointment was approved by the competent authority on 01.06.1994. He further contended that while the father of the Petitioner was working as a Classical Teacher, he died in harness on 04.07.2018 leaving behind his legal heirs including the present Petitioner. He further contended that the Petitioner being a legal heir submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 on 02.03.2019 before the new rules 2020 came into force. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties sat over the matter and kept the application pending and no final decision has been taken since the new rule of the year 2020 was introduced. 5. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing Page 3 of 5. W.P.(C) No.37418 of 2023, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 26.02.2024 directing the Petitioner to approach Opposite Party No.3 with a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. However, vide order dated 06.05.2024, the case of the Petitioner was rejected by the Opposite Party No.3 by virtue of the order at Annexure-7. On perusal of the said order under Annexure-7, it appears that the case of the Petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 06.05.2024. Thereafter, the Petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.26638 of 2024. While the above noted writ petition was pending for final disposal, the order dated 06.05.2024 was modified and a fresh rejection order dated 20.12.2024 was passed by the Opposite Party No.3. Consequently, the Petitioner once again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging the rejection order dated 20.12.2024 at Annexure-1 to the present writ petition. 6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner, while assailing the impugned order under Annexure-1, submitted before this Court that the Opposite Party No.3-District Education Officer, Ganjam has rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the premise that the Petitioner is not covered under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 as well as the Page 4 of 5. judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethi’s case. He further submitted that the benefit of R.A. Scheme has already been extended in favour of the employees of the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions by virtue of the letter No.16029/SME dated 01.08.2019. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the conduct of the Opposite Parties in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner is illegal and the same is unsustainable in law. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the Opposite Parties have already considered and rejected the case of the Petitioner by virtue of impugned order dated 20.12.2024 at Annexure-1. He further submitted that the Notification dated 01.08.2019 extending the RA benefit in favour of the employees of Aided Educational Institutions has already been withdrawn by the State. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the State contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the documents filed along with the present writ petition, further taking note of the limited nature of grievance involved in the present writ petition, this Page 5 of 5. Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.3 again by filing a fresh representation taking therein all the grounds. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to reconsider the whole issue by taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Odisha and Ors. v. Jita Luha (Civil Appeal No.5842 of 2025 decided on 02.05.2025) as well as the Notification dated 04.04.2025 of the G.A. & P.G. Notification, Government of Odisha and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of this order. It is made clear that while considering the representation of the Petitioner afresh, the Opposite Party No.3 shall not be influenced by the order dated 20.12.2024 under Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The final order so passed be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Debasis