WP(C)/26053/2026 of TUSARKANT KAR Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 29 August 2026

ORDER

29.08.2026 Order No. 01

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Even though the matter has been listed under the heading ‘Fresh Admission’, but on the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the Parties, the matter was heard and disposed of at this stage by the present order.

3. Heard.

4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “The Petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the Opp. Parties should not be quashed the impugned order dated 15.07.2022 at Annexure-7 and further be directed the Opp. Parties shall be given appointment to the petitioner under the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 forthwith.

And issue any other writ/writs or direction/directions as would be necessary in the interest of justice. And for which act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

5. It is contended that even though Petitioner was a minor at the time of death of his father, but he could not make the application within the prescribed period of limitation on his attaining the majority on 12.02.2015.

5.1. It is contended that after attaining his majority, Petitioner’s mother when was declared medically unfit to make the application by the Medical Board on 12.12.2020 under Annexure-6, on such declaration of his mother as medically unfit, Petitioner made the application to get the benefit under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on 11.01.2021 under Annexure-5. But the same has rejected vide the impugned order dated 15.07.2022 of Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-7, inter alia on the ground that the application is time barred.

5.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule 9(11) of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 contended that in case of present nature, the delay can be condoned by the Hon’ble Chief Minister on being referred by the Administrative Dept. Rule 9(11) of the Rules reads as follows:- “9(11) Notwithstanding the period of limitation prescribed in Sub-rule (6) delay not exceeding 12 months in submission of application for appointment under these rules may be condoned by the Administrative Department and delay exceeding 12 months may be condoned by the Chief Minister.”

5.3. Since Petitioner’s mother after being declared medically unfit on 12.12.2020, Petitioner made the application on 11.01.2021, even though beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the rules, but in view of the provisions contained under Rule 9(11) of the Rules, the matter should have been referred to the Hon’ble Chief Minister for condonation of delay in making the application, instead of rejecting the same on the ground indicated in the impugned order dated 15.07.2022 under Annexure-11.

5.4. It is accordingly contended that the matter be remitted to Opp. Party No.2 and Opp. Party No.2 be directed to refer the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Minister for condonation of the delay in making the application by the Petitioner and on such condonation of delay if any, Petitioner’s claim be considered afresh.

6. Even though learned Addl. Standing Counsel supported the impugned order, but fairly contended that there is provision for condonation of delay by the Hon’ble Chief Minister in such type of cases in terms of Rule 9(11) of the Rule.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submission made and since Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 15.07.2022 under Annexure-7 only on the ground of delay, this Court placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule 9(11) of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990, is inclined to quash order dated 15.07.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-7.

7.1. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to refer the Petitioner’s claim to the Hon’ble Chief Minister for condonation of delay in making the application in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 9(11) of the rules. On such condonation of delay, if any, by the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Petitioner’s claim be considered afresh in the light of the provisions contained under OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 read with OCS (RA) Amendment Rules, 2025.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)

Judge

Jyoti Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 01-Sep-2026 11:41:34 Signature Not Verified