The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.628 of 2022 Ajit Routray …. Mr.B.S.Dasparida, Advocate Petitioner State of Odisha and others …. -versus- Opp. Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 06.03.2024 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed in the Writ Petition. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: Admit the present Writ Petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties AND Quash the impugned orders dated 03.11.2021 and 20.11.2021 passed by Opposite Party No. 1 and thereby issue a writ in the nature of of Mandamus or/and writ of Certiorari or/and any other appropriate Writ of like nature and Direction(s) or Order(s) to the Opposite Party(s) for granting appointment for a Government Job in Group 'C' post to the Petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme of the Orissa Civil Services Rehabilitation Assistance Amendment Rules, 2016; Further pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and good AND // 2 // conscience.” 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the father of the Petitioner, namely, one Bidyadhar Routray, while working as a peon in the Information & Public Relations Dept., Govt. of Odisha died in harness on 13.04.2018. Thereafter, the Petitioner being one of legal heir applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the OCS (RA) Rule, 1990 as amended up to the year 2016. However, such application was not considered on the ground that there exists no vacancy. He further contended that although the application of the Petitioner was duly evaluated and he was found suitable for appointment under the old rules, however due to non-availability of post, he could not be given any appointment. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the persons who were there in the list, some of them have been given appointment. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the after coming into force the new rule, 2020, the Petitioner was asked to apply under the new rule afresh. Pursuant to such direction of the Opposite Parties although the Petitioner applied, however his application has been rejected vide order dated 03.11.2021 which was communicated to the Petitioner on 20.11.2021 under Annexure-8 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by such order of the Opposite Party No.1, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1 and State of West Bengal-v.-Debabrata Tiwri passed in Civil Appeal No.8842 of 2022 decided on 3rd of March, 2023 reported in (2023 (3) SCALE-557 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the judgment of this Court in Suchitra Bal vs. // 3 // State of Odisha & ors. by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 decided on 16.03.2023 as well as Bindusagar Samantaray vs. State of Odisha & ors. by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.810 of 2021 decided on 25.09.2023 and submitted before this Court that taking into consideration the date of death of deceased government employee and the date of application, the application of the Petitioner should have been considered in the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. Further, referred that the judgment of this Court in the case of Biswajit Swain vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 decided on 31.10.2023, wherein this Court has already declared the Rule-6 (9) of the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 was ultra vires. In such view of the matter, he submitted that the Opposite Parties have committed an illegality by rejecting the application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground vide under Annexure-8 to the writ application. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits that the case of the Petitioner was duly considered due to non-availability of post, he was not given appointment. While the issue is pending, the new rule of the year 2020 and in view of the provisions committed in Rule-6(9) of the new rule, the Petitioner was again asked to submit a fresh application under the 2020 rules and thereafter, considering the application of the Petitioner by applying the 2020 rules, the authorities have rejected such application of the Petitioner. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Opposite Parties- authorities have not committed any illegality while rejecting the application of the Petitioner. 7. Considering the submissions made by the respective parties, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the application at the stage of // 4 // admission by setting aside the impugned order dated 03.11.2021 which was communicated 20.11.2021 of Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-8 and further remand the matter back to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the application of the petitioner afresh in the light of the law laid down of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court which are discussed hereinabove and the petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Party No.1 along with certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. On appearance of the petitioner, Opposite party No.1 shall do well to consider the case of the petitioner and dispose of the matter by passing a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of two months. Any decision so taken on the same shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of ten days thereafter. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Mar-2024 10:01:04