WP(C)/26117/2026 of SWAGATIKA SAHOO Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 19 August 2026

ORDER

19.08.2026

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

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition even though has been filed inter alia challenging the order dtd.14.03.2026 under Annexure-5, wherein claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme has been rejected.

3.1. But in course of hearing learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner fairly contended that Petitioner wrongly made the application to get the benefit prior to her attaining the age of majority.

// 2 //

3.2. It is contended that Petitioner attained the age of majority on 27.01.2026, but she wrongly made the application on 26.09.2025. However, without looking into that aspect, Petitioner’s claim has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd. 14.03.2026 on the ground that under the OCS (RA) Amended Rules, 2020, Petitioner was not found eligible.

3.3. It is further contended that in the meantime in supersession of the OCS (RA) Amended Rules, 2020, Government in the GA & PG Department vide Notification dtd. 18.08.2026 has framed a new rules namely OCS (RA) Rules, 2026 and under the said rule it has been held that all applications whether pending or rejected shall be considered in accordance with the amended Rules, 2026.

3.4. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner be permitted to make a fresh application to get the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme before Opposite Party No.3, and the said authority be directed to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim basing on the amended OCA (RA) Rules, 2026.

4. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that since by the time Petitioner’s claim was rejected relying on the OCS (RA) Amended Rules, 2020,

// 3 //

the notification dtd.18.08.2026 was not there, no illegality or irregularity can be found with such rejection.

5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that Petitioner prior to her attending majority made the application on 26.09.2025 and the same has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.14.03.2026 under Annexure-5, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition permits the Petitioner to make a fresh application before Opposite Party No.3 for consideration of her claim.

5.1. It is observed that if any such application will be filed within a period of two (2) weeks hence, Opp. Party No.3 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such representation. The order so passed by Opp. Party No.3 be communicated to the Petitioner.

5.2. However, it is observed that while taking a fresh decision, Petitioner’s claim be considered in accordance with the provisions contained under OCS (RA) Rules, 2026.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Subrat

Judge Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 20-Aug-2026 17:54:45 Signature Not Verified