IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1001 of 2021 Amit Kumar Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 28.01.2025 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that on the death of his father, Petitioner though make an application to get the benefit of Rehabilitation Appointment, but in view of the stipulation contained in the impugned communication under Annexure-2, his claim has not yet been considered. Vide the impugned communication dtd.09.09.2020 under Annexure-2, Government decided to withdraw the benefits of Rehabilitation Appointment extended in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased employee working in fully Aided Educational Institutions and Educational Institution receiving grant-in-aid (New)/ block grant so issued vide letter No.16029 dtd.01.08.2019. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in view of the decisions rendered by this Court in the case of Bindusagar Samantaray vrs. State of Odisha & Others (W.A. No.810 of 2023, decided on 13.09.2023) and the decision in the case of Suchitra Bal vs. State of Odisha & Others decided on 27.06.2023 in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021, the stipulation contained in impugned communication, no more subsists and claim of the Petitioner is required to be considered and in the light of decision in the case Bindusagar Samantaray as well as Suchitra Bal. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State does not dispute the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner with regard to the decisions rendered in the case of Bindusagar Samantaray and Suchitra Bal. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition is of the view that the claim of the Petitioner is required to be considered in the light of the decision in the case of Bindusagar Samantaray as well as Suchitra Bal as cited (supra). Accordingly, this Court directs Opposite Party No.3 to take a final decision on the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the decisions as cited (supra) within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the result thereof to the Petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Subrat Judge Designation: Personal Assistant