The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.9 of 2020 Subasini Luha … Petitioner Mr. A.K. Dash, Advocate -versus- Union of India and Another
Legal Reasoning
… Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, Deputy Solicitor General along with Mr. B. Maharana, CGC. CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 14.09.2023 02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General along with Mr. B. Moharana, learned Central Government Counsel for the Opposite Party-Union of India. 3. The review petition has been filed questioning the order dated 12th December, 2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.7822 of 2014 by a Division Bench, in which one of us (Mr. Justice K.R. Mohapatra) was a member. By the said order, the Division Bench inter alia observed as follows: “The Tribunal while considering the compassionate appointment on the ground of death of the husband of the petitioner has considered that the husband of Page 1 of 5 the petitioner was removed from his service. However, an endeavour is made by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application was moved for modification of the order of authorized absence as at Annexure-5, which came to be disposed of on 21.01.2013. Again she has approached on 11.04.2013. However, the fact remains, removal of the late husband of the petitioner from service has not been challenged and set aside by the competent authority or Court. In that view of the matter, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal. No case is made out for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed sans merit.” 4. In this regard, we would like to refer to the final order dated 24th March, 2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.927 of 2013. After taking note of the facts pleaded and the submission advanced by the respective counsel for the parties, it has been observed that “in view of the order dated 10.05.2012 in which the husband of the applicant was removed from service in a major disciplinary proceedings, the applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed in this O.A. Hence, this OA stands dismissed at this admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs.” 5. In the review petition, the petitioner has taken several grounds including that the order dated 24th March, 2014 as passed by the Page 2 of 5 learned CAT in O.A. No.927 of 2013, relevant parts of which have been reproduced hereinbefore, is based on misleading facts. It has been also asserted that without taking the relevant documents filed by the petitioner into consideration, the impugned order was passed. This Court has directed the Opposite Parties by the order dated 24th April, 2014 to produce the records of the departmental proceeding. The direction has not been complied with, till the day of passing of the final order. On 12th December, 2019, when the final order was passed, according to the Petitioner, this Court did not consider its own order of calling the records of the disciplinary proceeding. 6. Mr. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner has submitted that as per Rule 17 of the Railway Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968; an appeal has to be preferred within forty-five days after the final order is passed. Within the limitation period, the husband of the writ petitioner passed away. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously argued to satisfy that the mercy petition as filed by the writ petitioner of W.P.(C) No.7822 of 2014 could have been treated as the appeal. The said appeal was never disposed of for obvious reason. Page 3 of 5 7. We have taken the pain to go through the entire mercy petition and we are constrained to observe that not a single word has been invested to question the final order of the Disciplinary Authority whereby the delinquent officer; the husband of the petitioner, was removed from the service. In the mercy petition, a few grounds have been taken. It has been asserted that the delinquent officer was suffering from serious mental illness, but again no paper has been shown before us that the said fact was brought to the notice of the inquiry officer, who was conducting the inquiry for and on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. In such circumstances, we cannot treat the mercy petition as an appeal. The whole purpose of filing the mercy petition simplicitor was for compassionate appointment. The writ petition emanates from the final order of the CAT by which prayer for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been refused. It has been observed that since the husband of the petitioner was removed from the service, the scheme of compassionate appointment cannot be pressed in the service. The CAT dismissed the original application for being bereft of merit at the stage of admission. Challenging that order, the writ petition for judicial review had been filed. A Division Page 4 of 5 Bench of this Court, as stated above, has dismissed that writ petition for the above noted reasons. 8. We have considered the grounds taken by the review petitioner. Within the parameters, which are recognized as essential, for entertaining the review petition, the grounds as cited do not fall to make out a case where there is error apparent on the face of the record and/or for new disclosure, the order of the Division Bench is required to be revisited. Moreover, we are of the considered view that this review petition has been filed on some perceived facts, which are not borne in the records. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (S. Talapatra) Chief Justice (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge SK Jena/Secy. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Sep-2023 17:36:13 Page 5 of 5