Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha & Ors vs Suprava Halba @ Suchen And on 12 May, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.1885 of 2024
State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Appellants
Mr. Umesh Chandra Behura, AGA <<<<
-versus-
Suprava Halba @ Suchen and .... Respondents
another ,, CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 12.05.2026
01. W.A. No.1885 of 2024 & I.A. No.4923 of 2024 The State and its officials seeks to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge's order dated 01.12.2023 entered in Respondent-job aspirant's WPC No. 15100 of 2020. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:
"9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, and on a careful consideration of their submissions as well as on examination of the factual background of the present case, this Court observes that, the only issue involved in the present writ application is with regard to the validity of letter dated 02.06.2020 under Annexure-13 and letter dated 17.03.2020 under Annexure-12 thereunder directing to consider all pending application under O.C.S. (RA) Rule 2020 irrespective of the dare of death and the rule applicable at the time of death. In the aforesaid context this Court would like to observe that, the issue involved in the present writ application is the same as the ones that have already been dealt with elaborately in many other cases involving identical factual scenario. In Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others: reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with an identical case has categorically stated that the application of the applicant in case the death has taken place prior to the date when the new rule came into force, is required to be considered under the old rule i.e. OCS Rules, 1990. This Court has also taken similar views in State of Odisha and others vs. Bindu Sagar Samantaray in W.A. No. 810 of 2021, as well as Suchitra Bal v. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 & batch decided on 27.06
202. Further Rule 6(9) of the O.C.S. (RA) Rules 2020, which was subject matter of this Court in Biswajit Swain's case, this Court taking into consideration the contention of the parties and by referring to several judgments, was of the view that the said rule 6(9) OCS RA Rules 2020 is ultra vires of article 14 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the same has been declared as such. In view of the aforesaid legal position nothing remains be adjudicated in the present writ application. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that, the impugned letter under Annexure-11 and 12 dated 17.03.2020 in the writ application is unsustainable in law. Accordingly the same is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No. 1 and 3 to consider grant of concurrence as has been requested vide letter under Annexure-7 and 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid analysis and the judgments referred to hereinabove let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of two months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order. Any decision taken by the Opposite parties shall be communicated to the petitioner within ten days of taking such decision. This Court further directs that, in the event there is no other impediment, other than the issue involved in the present writ application, the opposite, party shall take necessary steps for granting necessary approval/concurrence for appointment of the Petitioner as has been recommended vide letter under Annexure-7 & 9".
2. The Appeal is filed after brooking a short delay of 187 days and an application in I.A. No.4923 of 2024 supported by an affidavit is moved seeking its condonation. Delay is not that long and explanation is found to be plausible. Therefore, without notice to the opponent, the application is favoured and delay is condoned.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellants and having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has essentially directed Page 2 of 3 consideration of the claim for Compassionate Appointment as per the Rules then in operation inasmuch as the bread earner of the family met his maker on 24.11.2016. The contention that, Rules having been amended subsequently, the amended Rules should govern matters of the kind is bit difficult to countenance, the Law having been well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court in this regard.
In the above circumstances, the Appeal being unworthy is liable to be rejected in limine and accordingly it is coupled with a direction to give effect to the impugned order of the learned Single Judge within an outer limit of 8 weeks inasmuch as claim relates to Compassionate Appointment where a task has to be accomplished on a war footing.
(Krishna S. Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AK Pradhan/Priyanka Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 14-May-2026 19:11:40 Page 3 of 3