IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 36462 of 2025 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

………………

Sarojini Sethy …. Petitioner -versus-

State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. G.R. Sethi, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda Addl. Standing Counsel PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing: 22.01.2026 & Date of Judgment: 22.01.2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. G.R. Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

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

“It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble court may graciously be pleased to admit the case and call for the records and after hearing both the parties pas the following reliefs:

i) To quash the rejection order dtd.31.3.2021 under Annexure -5.

ii) To quash the order dtd.28.11.2025 and order dtd.21.11.2025 under Annexure- 8 series iii) To direct the Opposite Parties to appoint the petitioner as per OCS (Rehabilitation Assistance)

Amendment Rules, 2016 iv) To direct the Opposite Parties to grant all financial and consequential benefits flowing from the date of appointment.

v)To pass such other order/orders as would v) be deemed fit and proper.

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

4. It is contended that on the earlier occasion when claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment was rejected vide order dtd.31.03.2021 under Annexure-5, taking into account the provisions contained under OCS (R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020, the same was assailed in W.P.(C) No. 33474 of 2023.

4.1. It is contended that vide order under Annexure-6, this Court while quashing the rejection, directed Opp. Party No. 3 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim in the light of the provisions contained under OCS (R.A.) Amendment Rules, 2025 and the clarification issued on

13.06.2025.

4.2. It is contended that on the face of such order passed by this Court under Annexure-6, claim of the Petitioner was again rejected vide the impugned order dtd.28.11.2025 under Annexure-8 series, on the ground that Petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased and accordingly in terms of the provisions contained under OCS (R.A)

Rules, 1990, Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit.

4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that extension of benefit under R.A. Scheme in favour of married daughters of the deceased employee is no more res integra, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Kshirabadi Bala Behera Vs. Odisha Administrative Tribunal represented through its Registrar, Cuttack & Others (2023) (Supp.I) OLR-620 so followed by this Court in no. of cases. This Court in the case of Kshirabadi Bala Behera in Para 46 & 47 has held as follows:-

“46. From the factual and legal analysis, as made above, it emanates that institution of marriage is an important and basic civil right of man and woman and marriage by itself is not a disqualification and 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 word “unmarried”, as prescribed in Rules, 1990 and Rules, 2020 is hereby struck down being unconstitutional and ultra vires being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the of the Constitution of India.

47. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussions, the orders dated 06.05.2015 and 29.06.2015 passed by the