Page 1 of 7. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.10991 of 2026 Sadyasmita Mohapatra ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. – Mr. Dillip Kumar Mohanty -versus- State of Orissa & others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.- Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 16.04.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State- Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- “Under the above noted facts & circumstances, the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the relevant records and after hearing both the parties be pleased to allow this Writ Petition to the extent that:- i) To quash the order dt. 09.01.2026 under Annexure- 13; -And- Page 2 of 7. ii) To direct the Opp. Parties to re-consider the case for compassionate appointment of the petitioner to the post which commensurate with her qualification in the office under Odisha Civil Service (R.A.) Rules, 1990 as per rules & law well settled by Hon'ble courts; -And- iii) Further be pleased to issue any other writ or writs, direction or directions, order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the late mother of the Petitioner, namely, Ranjita Kumari Pati, who was working as an Assistant Teacher at Barunapada Primary School, Tirtol of Jagatsinghpur District, died in harness on 31.10.2012 leaving behind her legal heirs comprising of her unemployed husband and four daughters, out of whom, two were married and two were unmarried at that point of time. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that although the present Petitioner is a married daughter of the deceased Government employee, however, she is looking after the family of the deceased Government employee. He further submitted that the Petitioner +2 qualified residing with her family along with her husband. The Petitioner, after the death of the deceased Government employee, submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground with the consent of other legal heirs. Such application was forwarded to the Opposite Party No.3, who happens to be the competent authority, on 19.08.2013. The Opposite Party No.3 sought for a clarification from the Opposite Party No.2 with regard to compassionate appointment of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner is a married daughter. Page 3 of 7. However, no clarification was issued by the office of the Opposite Party No.3 and no final decision was communicated to the Petitioner with regard to the status with her application for appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, the Petitioner enquired from the office of the Opposite Party No.2 by submitting an application under RTI Act, whereunder it was communicated to her that her application for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Eventually, the Petitioner has approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by filing O.A. No.3827(C) of 2015. After abolition of Orissa Administrative Tribunal, the O.A. was transferred to this Court and re-registered as W.P.C(OAC) No.3827 of 2015. This Court, vide order dated 08.07.2022, while disposing of the pending writ application of the Petitioner, was pleased to set aside the impugned rejection order dated 19.12.2013 and directed the authorities to reconsider the matter by taking note of the provision contained under Rule-16 of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. 5. While this was the position, the Opposite Parties again rejected the application of the Petitioner vide order dated 02.11.2022 on the ground that in the meantime the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 has been repealed and a new set of rules i.e. the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 has come into force w.e.f. 17.02.2020 and that the Petitioner being a married daughter does not come within the definition of the family as has been prescribed in the new rules. Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.191 of 2025 challenging the impugned order of rejection. This Court, vide order dated 04.02.2025, disposed of the said writ petition by quashing the order dated 02.11.2022 and directing the Page 4 of 7. Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner by keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Mamita Parida Vrs. State of Odisha and Others & Smt. Gayatri Naik Vrs. State of Odisha and Others. Finally, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging the last order of rejection dated 18.03.2025 passed pursuant to order dated 04.02.2025 by the Opposite Party No.3. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, alleged that while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, the Opposite Parties have not followed the direction contained in order dated 04.02.2025. He further submitted that though Petitioner is a married daughter, however she is looking after the family of the deceased Government employee. In the aforesaid factual background, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner is eligible to be considered and appointed on compassionate ground so that she will be able to provide support to the family of the deceased Government employee, which is the prime objective of the Rehabilitation Assistance Rules of the Government of Odisha. 7. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kshirabadi Bala Behera v. Orissa Administrative Tribunal represented through its Registrar, Cuttack & Ors., reported in 2023 (Supp.I) OLR-620. The Division Bench of this Court in the above noted judgment was considering an identical issue, i.e. the right of a married daughter for being considered and appointed on compassionate ground under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. The Hon’ble Division Bench, after taking into consideration the entire Page 5 of 7. factual background of the case as well as the submission made by the respective counsels, has finally come to a conclusion that the marriage by itself is not a disqualification and that the impugned policy of the State Government barring and prohibiting the consideration of the ‘married’ daughter from seeking compassionate appointment merely on the ground of marriage is plainly arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees as envisaged in Articles 14, 15 and 16(2) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Division Bench struck down the word ‘unmarried’ as prescribed in Rules, 1990 and Rules, 2020 holding the same to be unconstitutional and ultra vires to the provisions of constitution as contained in Article 14 & 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kshirabadi Bala Behera’s case (supra) has attained finality. This Court has also in many similar factual scenarios applied ratio laid down in Kshirabadi Bala Behera’s case (supra). 8. Learned counsel for the State, at the outset, submitted that he has no instruction in the matter. However, referring to the impugned rejection order dated 09.01.2026 at Annexure-13, specifically the explanation given by the competent authority, i.e. the District Education Officer, Jagatsinghpur in paragraph-7, 8, 9 thereof, learned counsel for the State contended that Opposite Party No.3 has not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer for appointment of the Petitioner on compassionate ground. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and, as such, the same should be dismissed. 9. On a careful consideration of the impugned order dated Page 6 of 7. 09.01.2026 at Annexure-13, this Court observes that the Opposite Party No.3, while rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner, has tried to draw a distinction between the present Petitioner and two other individuals referred to in the previous order of this Court on the ground that the two individuals (Smt. Gayatri Naik and Mamita Parida) were unmarried at the time of filing of their application for compassionate appointment, and got married during pendency of the applications. Whereas, the legal heir certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner has been issued only for the purpose of withdrawal of family pension, arrear of government dues, gratuity etc. 10. On a careful consideration of the impugned order, specifically the aforementioned portion in para-9, this Court is of the considered view that drawal of such distinction between the present Petitioner and the two other individuals is entirely artificial and not in consonance with the settled legal position as well as the constitutional guarantee to the citizens under Article 14, 15 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, a Division Bench of this Court in Kshirabadi Bala Behera’s case (supra) has already struck down the word ‘unmarried’ in both the rules of the year 1990 as well as the 2020. The Opposite Party No.3 has not referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench which has specifically dealt with the right of the married daughter for being appointed on compassionate ground. In view of the aforesaid analysis of legal as well as factual position, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 at Annexure-13 is not inconsonance with the direction of this Court vide order dated 04.02.2015 at Annexure-10. Moreover, the same is contrary to the constitutional provision as well as the judgment of this Court by the Division Bench in Page 7 of 7. Kshirabadi Bala Behera’s case (supra). 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 at Annexure-13 to the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.3 to reconsider the case of the Petitioner by taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Kshirabadi Bala Behera’s case (supra). Let the Opposite Party No.3 take a final decision with regard to the appointment of the Petitioner on compassionate ground within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.3 be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis `