The High Court
Case Details
// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21522 of 2011 Sabita Chakraborty …. Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. B.M. Bhuyan, Adv. -versus- The State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. B.K. Sharma, Adv. for for O.Ps 2 &3 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. ORDER 25.07.2024 08. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, issue notice to the Opp. Parties and after hearing both sides may further be pleased to issue writ/writs in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the Opp. Parties to consider/dispose of the petitioner’s representation under Annexure-6 pending before the Opp. Party No.2 within reasonable time limit;” 4. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 submits that this Court has earlier decided the similar issue in the judgment Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 29-Jul-2024 12:38:48 Page 1 of 5 // 2 // dated 25.06.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.27929 of 2019 (Madhusmita Hembram -vrs.- State of Orissa & Ors.). Hence, he submits that this Writ Petition may be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Madhusmita Hembram -vrs.- State of Orissa & Ors. (supra). 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submit that he has no objection, if this matter is disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Madhusmita Hembram -vrs.- State of Orissa & Ors. (supra). 6. On perusal of the records and the judgment passed in the case of Madhusmita Hembram -vrs.- State of Orissa & Ors. (supra), it appears that similar issue has already been decided by this Court in the said judgment which was disposed of on 25.06.2024. The ordering portion of the said judgment is as follows. III. COURT’S ANALYSIS AND REASONS: 4. In its 165th meeting on June 21, 2013, the Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation (OLIC) decided to provide financial assistance of Rs.1,50,000/- to the family members of each deceased employees of the Corporation. As the Petitioner's father passed away on August 23, 2018, and the Petitioner subsequently applied for an appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on May 20, 2019, she is eligible for the financial assistance of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of employment. Consequently, her application for appointment was rejected, and she was offered the financial assistance as stipulated by the Scheme instead of job. 5. The Petitioner drew a parallel with the case of Nirodh Kumar Satpathy, the son of Sukdev Satpathy, an Ex-Amin, who was appointed on March 18, 2020. Sukdev Satpathy, who worked under the Corporation, retired voluntarily on invalidation Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 29-Jul-2024 12:38:48 // 3 // grounds on August 16, 1996. His son, Nirodh Kumar Satpathy, applied for a job under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on September 20, 1996, which was significantly earlier than the introduction of Annexures-A/3 and B/3. In response, the State Government 6. Nirodh Kumar Satpathy had filed a Writ Petition before the Court, which directed the relevant authorities to consider his case. a communication dated July 16, 2019, instructing Opposite Party No. 3 to identify any available vacancies for an appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. This directive was based on the fact that Nirodh Kumar Satpathy had applied in financial assistance scheme was long before the 1996, implemented on August 12, 2013. issued 7. The Petitioner also cited the case of Ashok Kumar Sen to support her claim. Ashok Kumar Sen was appointed under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on July 7, 2000. Both Nirodh Kumar Satpathy and Ashok Kumar Sen had applied for appointments under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on September 20, 1996, and in the year 2000, respectively. Their applications were submitted before the implementation of the financial assistance scheme introduced by Annexure-A/3. 8. These two cases illustrate that the applicants applied for appointments under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme before the new policy offering one-time financial assistance in lieu of a government job was introduced. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to the financial assistance of Rs.1,50,000/- as per the current policy and cannot claim an appointment as a matter of right under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. 9. The decision to grant financial assistance instead of an appointment is consistent with the guidelines established by the Corporation. The Corporation's practice of providing financial assistance of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the next of the kin of the deceased employees, in lieu of a job, will continue unless the Board of Directors, with the Government's approval, decides otherwise. 10. Additionally, in a similar case in MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh1, the Supreme Court has held that an appointment on compassionate grounds may not be claimed as a matter of right nor does an applicant become entitled to an Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 29-Jul-2024 12:38:48 1 (2014) 13 SCC 583 Page 3 of 5 // 4 // appointment automatically, rather it depends on the eligibility of the applicant and the financial conditions of the applicant's family, etc., that are to be considered in accordance with the scheme. In case the scheme does not create any legal right, a candidate cannot claim his case to be considered as per the scheme existing on the date when the cause of action, i.e. the death of the incumbent while holding the post, had arisen. In the said judgment, while interpreting the word "Vested Right", the is a right Supreme Court has held that Vested Right independent of any contingency and it cannot be taken away without the consent of the person concerned and that the vested right can arise from a contract, a statute or by operation of law in favour of a person. 11. Furthermore, in Canara Bank and another v. M. Mahesh Kumar2, the Supreme Court while considering a case of compassionate appointment and the question that cropped up before the Supreme Court was whether the old scheme (1993) is applicable or the new substituted scheme (2005) for ex gratia payment applies to the facts of that case. Finally, it was held that a grant of family pension or terminal benefit cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. Furthermore, a claim for compassionate appointment under a scheme of a particular year cannot be decided based on a subsequent scheme that came into force much after the claim was made. On a pleading of the said judgment, it is clear that the Supreme Court in the said case has clearly observed that the scheme which was in force when the claim was made shall be applicable to the claimants for compassionate appointment. In the present case, the Opposite Parties/ Corporation have devised a plan to pay Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of the job offer to the kin of the deceased employee. Further, the plea of negative equality cannot be accepted. The Petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right as the Opposite Parties/ Corporation has no vacancies to offer. 12. Accordingly, this Court does not accede to the submissions of the Petitioner. With respect to the aforesaid discussion and the cases cited hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer of the Petitioner.” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 29-Jul-2024 12:38:48 2 (2015) 7 SCC 412 Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the judgment dated 25.06.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.27929 of 2019, this Court is inclined to accede to the submissions of the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer of the Petitioner. 8. This Writ Petition is dismissed. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Murmu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 29-Jul-2024 12:38:48 Page 5 of 5