The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.4107 of 2025 Gouri Sankar Behera ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Satyabrata Satapathy -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 18.02.2025 Order No. 01. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, the humble petitioner fervently prays this Hon’ble Court to be graciously pleased to issue notice to the Opp. Parties, call for relevant records and after hearing the Coun sel of parties, issue a writ the the nature of mandamus quashing in impugned order No. 2514 dtd. 01.03.2024 under Parties Annexure-1, commanding Opp. Page 1 of 5. particularly to the Opp. Party No. 2, the Director of Horticulture-Cum-Ex-Officio, Addl. Secretary to Govt., to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner befitting his qualification under OCS (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 in terms of decision rendered in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy Vs. State of Odisha and others (Civil Appeal No. 4103/2022, decided on 20.05.2022) within the time stipulated, And/or pass such other order or direction as deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 4. The factual background of the Petitioner’s case during filing of the present writ petition in short is that the father of the Petitioner who was working as a Peon in the Office of the Asst. Director of Horticulture, Gunupur died in harness on 04.06.2015 leaving behind his legal heirs including the present Petitioner. The Petitioner being one of the eligible legal heirs, submitted an application on 27.01.2016 claiming appointment on compassionate ground under the OCS (RA) Rule, 1990. Accordingly, the application of the Petitioner was duly forwarded to the Office of the Director of Horticulture, Odisha by the Opposite Party No.3. While the matter was pending before the Opposite Party No.2 for consideration, the Office of the Opposite Party No.2 issued a letter dated 22.10.2016, directing the Opposite Party No.3 to produce certain relevant documents for consideration of the case of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, on 07.05.2018, the Opposite Party No.3 submitted the required documents for consideration of the Petitioner’s case. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset submitted that, although a valid application was submitted and upon consideration of Page 2 of 5. the application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, the Opposite Party No.2 sought for certain documents which have also been submitted in the meantime by the Petitioner, however, the case of the Petitioner has not yet been duly considered. He further contended that vide letter dated 28.02.2022, the Opposite Party No.2 directed the Opposite Party No.3 to take steps for giving appointment to the Petitioner under the OCS (RA) Rule, 2020. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.3 informed the Petitioner to submit a fresh application under the OCS (RA) Rule, 2020 on 21.04.2022. The Petitioner having no other alternative to submit a fresh application under the OCS (RA) Rule, 2020. Such application of the Petitioner has been illegally and arbitrarily rejected by the Opposite Parties vide their order dated 01.03.2024 under Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by such rejection of order dated 01.03.2024, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, further referring to the impugned rejection order dated 01.03.2024 under Annnexure-1, submitted that the application of the Petitioner has been considered by applying the principle of the OCS (RA) Rule, 2020 and by referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617. He further submitted that the law with regard to the applicability of the Rules to the pending application is no more res-integra. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner, by referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Suchitra Bal vs. State of Odisha & ors. in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 decided on 16.03.2023 as well as Bindusagar Samantaray vs. State Page 3 of 5. of Odisha & ors. in W.A. No.810 of 2021 decided on 25.09.2023 and the judgment of this Court in Biswajit Swain v. State of Odisha and others decided in W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021, contended that this Court has categorically held that the law applicable at the time of filing the application, shall apply with the pending applications. He further contended that in the case of Biswajit Swain (supra), this Court has further held that the Rule 6(9) of the OCS (RA) Rule, 2020 is ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned rejection order is unsustainable in law and accordingly the same should be quashed. 7. Learned counsel 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 course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the circular of the G.A & P.G. Department dated 17.02.2020 as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.C. Santosh’s case (supra). He further referred to the provisions contained in the OCS (RA) Rule, 2020, particularly Rule-6(9) and contended that all pending applications are to be considered under the new Rules. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly the same should be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful consideration of the materials on record, further taking note of the fact that the law with regard to applicability of the Rules has been elaborately discussed in various judgments of this Court including the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, which Page 4 of 5. have been specifically referred to hereinabove, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by setting aside the impugned order dated 01.03.2024 under Annexure- 1. Accordingly the same is hereby set aside. Since, order dated 01.03.2024 has not taken note of the aforesaid judgments of this Court, the case of the Petitioner is being remanded to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioner afresh by taking into consideration the judgments referred to hereinabove and to dispose of the application of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. Any final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. S.K. Rout ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Feb-2025 18:18:39 Page 5 of 5.