The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.2346 of 2025 Sasmita Jena ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Samir Kumar Mishra -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Under Secy To Govt, Commerce And Transport 3) Director, Directorate Of Printing, Stationary And Publication, Odisha 4) Collector, Puri ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. U.C.Jena, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 18.02.2025 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite parties. Perused the writ application as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, issue notice to the Opposite Parties, call for the relevant records and after hearing the counsel for the parties, the order No.8186 dated 14.10.2024 issued by the 0pp.Party No.3 under Annexure-14 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistant Scheme be quashed and the opposite parties be commanded to consider for appointment under the claim of the petitioner Page 1 of 7. Rehabilitation Assistant Scheme afresh and appoint the petitioner to a suitable job in the interest of justice; to pass such further be pleased further order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems just, equitable and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” And 4.
Facts
The factual background reading to filing the present writ application, in short, is that the father of the present petitioner, who was working as a Government employee died in harness on 19.05.2011 while he was working as Grade-lV helper. After the death of the deceased Government employee, his wife, namely, Golap Jena, who is eligible to be appointed in view of provision contained in Rule 2(b). She was eligible to be considered for appointment under OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. It appears from the pleadings that the wife of the deceased government employee is suffering from mental ailments. Therefore, she was unfit to discharge any duties. In the aforesaid factual position, the daughter of the deceased government employee submitted an application along with this legal heir certificate and a certificate from the C.D.M.O., Puri regarding the illness and unfitness of the mother of the present petitioner before the competent Authority, on 31.10.2011. Such application was accepted by the Opposite Parties and necessary enquiry was Conducted with regard to the financial condition of the family and to ascertain the distressful condition of the family for consideration under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. Learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner considered that the application of the Petitioner was .kept pending for a long time, for which the Petitioner was compelled to file several representations before the authorities to remind them that they have not taken any final decision on her application under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. Page 2 of 7. However, the Opposite Parties remain unmoved on such representations and no decision was taken for a long time. Finally, vide order dated 07.02.2023 the application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground under the OCS (RA) Rules was rejected on the ground that the spouse of the deceased government is alive and available for appointment. Further, the Opposite Parties in the concluding paragraph of the impugned order under Anncxurc-7 dated 07.02.2023 by referring the provision contained in rule 2(b) of OCS (RA) Rules 1990 have rejected the application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. He further contended that the application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 17.02.2023, on the ground that the wife of the deceased Govt. employee was alive and she was available for such appointment. Challenging the aforesaid impugned order dated 07.02.2023 and the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.42511 of 2024. This Court vide order dated 08.01.2024 allowed the writ application whereby the impugned order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the Opposite Party No.3 was set aside by holding that the bar contemplated under Section 2(b) of the O.C.S.(RA) Rules, 1990 is not applicable to the facts of the petitioner’s case. While holding so this Court had also referred to the judgment of this Court in Ajit Kumar Barik vs. State of Odisha reported in 2018 (II) OLR 10. Further, while disposing of the writ application, the communication vide letter No.5864 dated 13.10.2015 was also quashed and the matter was remanded back to the Opposite parties to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the
Legal Reasoning
light of the analysis made by this Court in order dated 08.01.2024 Page 3 of 7. with a further direction to take a fresh decision within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of said order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended
Decision
that after the previous writ application was disposed of vide order dated 08.01.2024, the petitioner again approached the Opposite Party No.3 and a copy of order dated 08.01.2024 was duly communicated to the Opposite Party No.3. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was reconsidered. He further contended that while reconsidering the matter pursuant to order dated 08.01.2024 the Opposite party No.3 asked the petitioner to submit a fresh application in the new formant under the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020. Since the petitioner had no other alternative and she was interested in getting appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner had submitted a fresh application under the new rules. The fresh application submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the letter under Annexure-10 dated 06.10.2024 was considered under the provisions of OCS (RA) Rules, 2020. Finally vide letter dated 14.10.2024 under Annexure-14, under the provisions OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 and the GA & PG department notification dated 17.02.2020. While rejecting the application of the petitioner, the Opposite Party No.3 has stated that the petitioner has secured 33 points, therefore, she is not eligible to be appointed under Rule 6- (2)(b) of the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020. Being aggrieved by such rejection order the petitioner again approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 7. In course of his argument learned counsel for the Petitioner, referring to the judgment by a Division Bench of this Court in the Page 4 of 7. case of Suchitra Bal vs. Stae of Odisha & Ors. in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021, decided on 16.03.2023 and in the case of Biswajit Swain vs. State of Odisha and Others in W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 submitted that in similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court along with this bench has specifically held that the application of the Petitioner is required to be considered under OCS(RA) Rule, 1990 as the death of the deceased employee occurred in the year 2012 but the Opposite Parties sat over the matter without considering the application. In such view of the matter, it was contended that the application of the Petitioner should be considered under the OCS(RA) Rule 1990 instead of directing the Petitioner to furnish a fresh application in the revised format. 8. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State on the other hand contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the Petitioner in view of the order dated 14.10.2024 under Annexure- 14. Further, it was submitted that since the Petitioner has not submitted her application as is required under OCS(RA) Rule, 2020, her application has been returned with a request to resubmit her application in the revised format. Therefore, It was contended that the present Writ Petition is devoid of merit and as such the conduct of the Opposite Parties in issuing the letter under Annexure-8 does not call for any interference of this Court. 9. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, on careful analysis of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, taking into consideration the date of death of Government employee and further keeping in view the factual background of this case, this Court is of the view that there is no Page 5 of 7. dispute with regard to the death of the Government employee and the date on which the application was submitted for appointment on compassionate ground. In the earlier Writ Application the coordinate Bench held that the conduct of the Opposite Parties in considering the application of the Petitioner under the OCS (RA) Rules is illegal and the matter was remanded to the authorities for reconsideration. While the matter was pending before the concerned authorities, the Petitioner was intimated to submit a fresh application under OCS(RA) Rule 2020. In this context, the Petitioner has referred to the judgments delivered by the Division Bench in the case of Suchitra Bal vs. State of Odisha in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 decided on 27.06.2023 as well as Bindusagar Samantaray vs. State of Odisha and Ors. by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.810 of 2021 and in the case of Biswajit Swain vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021. Additionally, this Court would also like to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa and others: reported in 2022(II) OLR (SC)-1. 10. Furthermore, in Biswajit Swain’s case, it has been held that Rule 6(9) of the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 is ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that there is no doubt with regard to the proposition that the pending applications made prior to the date on which the new OCS(RA) Rule, 2020 came into force are to be considered under the old Rules of the year 1990. Moreover, though in the present case the application of the Petitioner was earlier considered under OCS(RA) Rule 1990 and the same was rejected referring to Section 2(b) of 1990 Rules, however, subsequently the same has been rejected Page 6 of 7. under the new Rules, 2020. The earlier rejection was set aside on the ground that the same is illegal in view of the judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in WPC(OAC) No.4126 of 2016 by a coordinate Bench of this Court. Under the aforesaid scenario, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that the application of the Petitioner should be considered under the OCS(RA) Rule, 1990. 11. Accordingly, while disposing of the present Writ Petition, this Court deems it proper to set aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2024 under Annexure-14 and the same is hereby set aside. Furthermore, the matter is remanded to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, keeping in view the observations made herein above and the judgments referred to in this order. It is further directed that the application of the Petitioner shall be considered within a period of three months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order and be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within 10 days from the date of taking such decision. 12. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 13. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 7 of 7. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Feb-2025 10:25:50