Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9100 of 2026 Sangeeta Giri ..... Petitioners Represented by Adv. – Mr. Shashanka Shekhar Patra -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 30.03.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. The subject matter of this writ petition is substantially similar to the one treated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPC(OAC) No.2062 of 2017 and batch of cases between Biplab Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha disposed off on 22.03.2023 and therefore, the relief granted to the set of employees in those writ petitions has to be extended to the Petitioner herein, submits by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 3. Learned Additional Standing Counsel having gone through the said Coordinate Bench judgment, in all fairness, submits that substantially the version of the Petitioner’s Page 2 of 3. counsel is true. 4. It is a cardinal principle of administration of justice that like cases should be treated alike subject to all just exceptions and no case is made out that would fit into such exceptions. 5. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed off in terms of the order dated 28.11.2025 in W.P.(C) No.19088 of 2025 (Mamata Mishra @ Mohapatra v. State of Odisha and others) as well as in terms of the order in the cognate case mentioned above with conditions mutatis- mutandis. In the cognate case, the following relief was granted to the litigants, reads as under:- “6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that on consideration of the claim of the Petitioners and similarly situated persons, the list of eligible candidates were published on 09.06.2014 under Annexure-1 for their appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. It is also found that from the list under Annexure-1, persons placed at Sl. Nos.9, 37 and 21 as reflected from Annexure-9, were appointed on regular basis. Not only that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1989 SC-1133, the clarification issued by the Government in the G.A Department on 06.02.2015 under Annexure-6 cannot take away the benefit available to the Petitioners under the provisions of OCS Rehabilitation Assistance Rules, 1990, which is a rule framed under Article-309 of the Constitution of India. 6.1. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as cited (supra) it is the view of this Court that any clarification issued contrary to the Page 3 of 3. provisions contained in the rule cannot override the statutory rules. Therefore, the action taken by the Opposite Parties in providing appointment to the Petitioners on contractual post relying on the clarification issued on 06.02.2015 under Annexure-6 is not legal and justified. Therefore, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court as cited (supra) and the benefits extended in favour of similarly stated persons as reflected in Annexure-9, this Court is inclined to quash the order of rejection so passed in the case of Biplab Kumar Sahoo in WPC(OAC) No.2062 of 2017. While quashing the said order, this Court directs the Opposite Parties to extend the benefit of regular appointment in favour of the Petitioners from their initial date of appointment. On such extension of the benefit of regular appointment, all service and financial benefit as due and admissible shall also be extended in favour of the Petitioners. This Court directs the Opposite Party No.3 to complete the entire exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.” Now, no costs. Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Debasis