Orissa High Court: Compassionate Appointment To Be Considered Under 1990 Rules, Delay By State Cannot Defeat Claim
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Orissa Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman held that the application for compassionate appointment filed by the dependent of a deceased government employee shall be considered under the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, in light of subsequent amendments and judicial precedents. The Court affirmed that the authority concerned must take into account the 1990 Rules while examining the respondent’s case, and disposed of the writ appeal without costs. It further directed that the Divisional Forest Officer, Ghumsur North Division, shall consider the application as per the 1990 Rules read with the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025.
The matter arose from the death in harness of the respondent’s father, who was working as a Forester under the Divisional Forest Officer, Ghumsur North Division, Bhanjanagar. The employee passed away on 25 March 2015. Following this, the respondent submitted an application dated 9 February 2016 under Rule 8 of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, seeking appointment to the post of Forest Guard or Junior Clerk.
After nearly four years, on 31 August 2018, the Divisional Forest Officer required the respondent to take a Computer and English Skill test for the post of Junior Clerk under the amended provisions introduced through the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2016. The respondent was found unsuitable, and the application was rejected on 22 September 2018.
Subsequently, on 19 February 2019, the respondent reapplied for the post of Forest Guard. This application was considered through Letter Memo No.1908 dated 22 April 2020. On 31 December 2020, the Divisional Forest Officer directed the respondent to submit a fresh application under the newly framed Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020.
Challenging this requirement, the respondent filed a writ petition, W.P.(C) No.1887 of 2024. The Single Bench, by order dated 1 February 2024, quashed the direction requiring a fresh application under the 2020 Rules. The Bench directed the authorities to consider the respondent’s case under the 1990 Rules within two months, and to communicate their decision within ten days of such determination.
Aggrieved, the State of Odisha and its functionaries filed Writ Appeal No.130 of 2025, contending that the applicable framework was the 2020 Rules since the matter was under consideration in 2021. They argued that the Single Bench erred in interfering with the Divisional Forest Officer’s order.
During the hearing on 5 August 2025, the Court condoned the delay in filing the writ appeal, acknowledging that the matter concerned compassionate appointment. Both parties consented to argue the matter on merits. The respondent opposed the appeal, citing the High Court’s earlier judgement in Biswajit Swain v. State of Odisha, where Rule 6(9) of the 2020 Rules was declared ultra vires. He also relied upon decisions in Suchitra Bal v. State of Odisha and State of Odisha v. Bindusagar Samantaray, as well as the Supreme Court judgment in Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Odisha.
It was asserted that since the application was submitted in 2016, prior to the enforcement of the 2020 Rules, the 1990 Rules must govern the case. The delay in consideration was attributed solely to the authorities. Meanwhile, the State contended that the law prevailing at the time of consideration applied, hence the 2020 Rules were binding.
On 26 August 2025, the Division Bench delivered its judgment, analyzing both factual and legal issues, including the impact of subsequent judicial pronouncements and the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025, which substituted sub-rule (9) of Rule 6 of the 2020 Rules.
The Court recorded that the facts were undisputed: the respondent’s father died on 25 March 2015, and the application for compassionate appointment was filed on 9 February 2016. The application was rejected on 31 December 2020 with a direction to apply afresh under the 2020 Rules.
The Bench observed: “Thus, there appears delay in taking up the application for consideration of the case of the respondent. Due to delay in consideration by the appellant No.4, in view of ratio of Malaya Nanda Sethy, the benefit of the RA Rules, 1990 cannot be denied to the respondent.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s judgement in Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Odisha, the Bench quoted: “Not appointing the appellant under the 1990 Rules would be giving a premium to the delay and/or inaction on the part of the department/authorities… The appellant has become a victim of the delay and/or inaction on the part of the department/authorities which may be deliberate or for reasons best known to the authorities concerned.”
The Court noted the judgement in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari: “If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way.”
The Bench further referred to Suchitra Bal v. State of Odisha, wherein it was held: “If the delay is attributable to the opposite parties, the application of the petitioners for rehabilitation assistance/appointment should not be frustrated by bringing them under the new Rehabilitation Assistance Rules, 2020.”
In State of Odisha v. Bindusagar Samantaray, the Court had earlier held: “We lay emphasis that consideration for rehabilitation assistance has to be made on the date of death, not on the date of consideration. In this regard, we are governed by the law, as laid down in Malaya Nanda Sethy.”
The Bench also stated that Rule 6(9) of the 2020 Rules had been declared unconstitutional in Biswajit Swain v. State of Odisha. It recorded: “Therefore, Rule 6, sub-rule (9) of the 2020 Rules is unconstitutional being hit by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as such the same is unsustainable in law.”
The Court took note of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025, which substituted Rule 6(9). The new provision clarified that applications relating to deaths prior to 17 February 2020 would be dealt with under the rules prevailing at the time of death. The Bench recorded: “It admits of no doubt that the application dated 09.02.2016 submitted by the respondent shall be governed by the provisions of the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990.”
It concluded: “This Court is of the considered view that the Order dated 01.02.2024 of the learned Single Bench suffers no illegality nor infirmity in law in view of principles stated in Suchitra Bal and Bindusagar Samantaray.”
The Court directed that the application be considered under the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, as clarified by the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025. The Bench held: “While considering the application for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme as directed by the learned Single Bench vide Order dated 01.02.2024 in W.P.(C) No.1887 of 2024, the authority, appellant No.4-Divisional Forest Officer, Ghumsur North Division shall take into consideration the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 as amended by the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025 and take a decision by adherence to the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990.”
The Division Bench ultimately ordered: “With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs. As a result of disposal of the writ appeal, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Satyajit Behera, Advocate
Case Title: State of Odisha v. Saroj Kumar Pradhan
Case Number: Writ Appeal No.130 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Harish Tandon; Justice Murahari Sri Raman
Comment / Reply From
You May Also Like
