IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.10820 of 2026 Paritosh Pradhan ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. -

Hrudananda Mohapatra -versus-

State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - Mr. U.C.Jena, A.S.C.

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No. 15.04.2026

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.

Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein.

3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

“It is therefore prayed that your Lordships shall be graciously pleased enough to admit the aforesaid writ petition, issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any form of writ or writs issuing Rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties particularly the District Education Officer, Angul, Opposite Party No.3 to show cause as to why direction shall not be given to him to give appointment to the petitioner under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme as per the OCS (RA) Rule, 1990 and OCS (RA) Amendment Rules, 2025 within a time stipulated, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances: if the Opp.Parties do not show cause or shows insufficient cause, The Rule N(S) be made absolute.

And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs as this Hon’ble deem, fit and proper.”

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the father of the Petitioner namely late Purna Chandra Pradhan, who was working as a Assistant Teacher in Pokatunga High School, Pokatunga, died in harness on 21.03.2001 leaving behind his legal heirs. He further contended that after the death of the deceased government employee his wife namely Lilabati Pradhan initially applied for appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2001. However, such application was never considered by the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the present Petitioner who happens to be a son of the deceased government employee and looking after the family submitted an application in 2012 on attaining the age of majority. Although, such application of the present Petitioner was considered and his name was included in the list of candidates to be appointed on compassionate ground, as is evident from the document from the letter dated 20.05.2025 and list appended to Annexure-4, however, till date the Petitioner has not been given appointment. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the mother of the Petitioner initially applied for appointment on compassionate ground immediately after the death of the father of the Petitioner. However, such application was not considered by the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted an application on 02.09.2012 for giving him appointment on compassionate ground under the O.C.S. (R.A) Rules, 1990. Such application was kept pending for more than a decade. Finally, the D.E.O., Angul published a list on 20.05.2025 finalising certain names and in the said list the name of the Petitioner appears at Serial No.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that the Petitioner has been enlisted and his name appeared at Serial No.1, however till date he has not been given appointment. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties to give appointment to the Petitioner, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however taking into consideration the letter dated 20.05.2025 at Annexure-4, the Petitioner should have approached the D.E.O., Angul, Opposite Party No.3 to the writ application for taking an ear