IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.15036 of 2021

In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India.

………………

Manasi Mohapatra …. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties

For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate

For Opp. Parties : Mr. A. Tripathy

Addl. Govt. Advocate

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing: 22.10.2025 and Date of Judgment: 22.10.2025

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the

Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following

prayer:-

“Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to quash the order dtd: 16.03.2020 of the Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-9 and direct the Opposite Parties to engage the petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistant Scheme of the State Government as per her marital status as per the rule prevailing father and/or on the date of her application and to grant her all consequential service and financial benefits within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper; on the date of death of her And/or pass any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions in the fitness of the case.

And for this act of kindness as in duty bound the petitioner shall ever pray.”

4. It is contended that on the death of the Petitioner’s father on 06.03.2013, Petitioner being the only child/daughter of the deceased, made the application on 06.11.2023 to get the benefit of Rehabilitation Appointment.

4.1. It is contended that in consideration of such application, not only distress certificate was issued but also the matter was processed at length, but ultimately vide the impugned communication dtd.16.03.2020 under Annexure-9, claim of the Petitioner was rejected only on the ground that Petitioner has got married in the meantime and accordingly not entitled to get the benefit in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 2(b) of the OCS (R.A.) Rules, 1990.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since by the time Petitioner made the application, she was unmarried and during consideration of her claim, Petitioner got married, there was no occasion to reject the Petitioner’s claim on the ground indicated in Annexure-9.

4.3. It is also contended that this Court in the case of Kshirabadi Bala Behera vs. Orissa Administrative Tribunal (W.P.(C) No. 14945 of 2015) as well as a decision of this Court in the case of Basanti Nayak Vs. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 (I) OLR-297, has already held that even married daughters are eligible to get the benefit of Rehabilitation Appointment. This Court in the case of Basanti Nayak in Para 10 to

12 has held as follows:-

“10. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Supreme Court held that the object of compassionate appointment is to help the family lied over the crisis that befalls them on the circumstance, so that the family will not be put to jeopardy by being driven to impecuniosities and condemned by penury. It is for this reason the emphasis on appointment on compassionate grounds is immediacy of appointment. This principle has been laid down in various judgments of the apex Court and, as such, the compassionate appointment is by now too well settled that it is not a matter of right and not an alternate source of recruitment.

11. In the case of C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India (1979) 4 SCC 260, the Supreme Court in the context of Indian Foreign Service (Conduct and Discipline). Rules, 1961, which prohibits appointment of married woman to such service, held in paragraphs-6 and 7 as follows:

"At the first blu