Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.11961 of 2026 Amiya Bhusan Dash ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Swapnil Roy -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 27.04.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid 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. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue Rule "NISI" to the Opp. Parties to show cause as to; (i) Why the action of the Opposite Party No.4 in requesting the Opposite Party No.3 to issue a fresh Distress Certificate in favour of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case will not be declared as illegal; and (ii) Why the Opposite Party No.4 will not be directed to take into consideration the Distress Certificate available in the year 2016 that is at the time of the original application of the petitioner under Annexure-5 Series within a stipulated time; Page 2 of 5. and (iii) Why the Opposite Party No. 4 will not be directed to consider the application dated 10.05.2016 of the petitioner under Armexure-5 Series in terms of the OCS (RA) Amendment Rules, 2025 under Annexure-10 within a stipulated time; And if the Opposite Parties do not show cause, then the Rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ/writs and any other order as deem fit be passed.” 4. The factual background leading to filing the present writ petition, in short, is that the father of the Petitioner, while continuing as a Classical Teacher under the Opposite Party No.6, died in harness on 20.09.2015. Thereafter, the Petitioner obtained an Income Certificate from the jurisdictional Tahasildar at Puri and submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground under the O.C.S. (RA) Rules, 1990. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, emphatically submitted that such application for appointment on compassionate ground was submitted on instruction on 10.05.2016, which has also been admitted by the Opposite Parties in the impugned rejection letter dated 02.07.2025 at Annexure-12 to the writ petition. He further contended that initially the application of the Petitioner was rejected as the same was considered in terms of the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 2020. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Rule-6(9) of the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 was challenged before this Court wherein the same was struck down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Bindusagar Samantaray v. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.A. No.810 of 2021 decided on 25.09.2023). Further, the same was declared ultra vires by this Bench in the case Biswajit Swain v. State Page 3 of 5. of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 dated 31.10.2023). Thereafter, the State-Opposite Parties went to the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Odisha and Ors. v. Jita Luha (Civil Appeal No.5842 of 2025) disposed of the applications on the basis of the amendment Notification dated 04.04.2025 of the State Government in General Administration & Public Grievance Department. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that the Notification amending the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 dated 04.04.2025 at Annexure-10 provides that applications which were filed prior to the amendment of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 in the year 2016 are to be considered on the basis of Distress Certificate submitted along with the application. He further submitted that ignoring such provision contained in the Notification at Annexure-10, the State-Opposite Parties have rejected the case of the Petitioner vide letter dated 02.07.2025 at Annexure-12 to the writ petition. While drawing attention of this Court to the letter dated 02.07.2025 at Annexure-12, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the name of the Petitioner appears at Serial No.99 and in the remarks column it has been mentioned that the Petitioner has applied afresh in the year 2025 and the proposal is being sent to Collector for obtaining a Distress Certificate. He further submitted no Distress Certificate is required in terms of the Notification dated 04.04.2025. He also submitted that the Opposite Parties have categorically admitted that the Petitioner has submitted an application on 10.05.2016 prior to the commencement of the amendment Rule of the year 2016 with effect from 05.11.20216. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Page 4 of 5. the conduct of the Opposite Parties in sending the application of the Petitioner for obtaining a fresh Distress Certificate is highly illegal and arbitrary and the same is contrary to the Notification of the State Government dated 04.04.2025 on the basis of which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has disposed of the State SLP in Jita Luha’s case (supra) 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that there exists no cause of action for filing of the present writ petition. He further contended that the application of the Petitioner is still pending for consideration and the same has not been decided. On such ground, the learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for both sides and on a careful examination of the background facts, further taking note of the documents annexed to the present writ petition, this Court observes that the Petitioner being aggrieved by the conduct of the Opposite Parties in sending the file to the concerned Collector for issuance of fresh Distress Certificate, as mentioned in the rejection letter dated 02.07.2025 at Annexure-12, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the Notification dated 04.04.2025 at Annexure-10, specifically the Rule-2 thereof, submitted before this Court that in view of the provisions contained in Rule-2(b), amending Rule-6(9) of the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020, submitted before this Court that as per such rule no fresh Distress Certificate is required for the application which was submitted prior to the amendment of the 2016 Rules.. 9. On a careful reading of the Notification dated 04.04.2025, this Page 5 of 5. Court is of the view that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner receives supports from the documents annexed to the writ petition. In such view of the matter, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing the Opposite Party No.4 to reconsider the application of the Petitioner strictly in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jita Luha’s case (supra) and keeping in view the Notification dated 04.04.2025 at Annexure-10 without insisting for a fresh Distress Certificate, as has been done in the letter dated 02.07.2025 under Annexure-12, and dispose of the application of the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis