The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3779 of 2024 Santosh Kumar Patra …. Petitioner Mr. K.C.Sahu,Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. D.Mohapatra, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 26.02.2024 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition 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 Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned order dtd. 05.01.2024 under Annexure-7 with further directing the Opp.parties for providing an appointment of the petitioner under the R.A. Scheme as per the then prevailing existing provisions/rules on the date of submission of the application form by the petitioner so also death of the father of the petitioner by keeping /invoking as per the provisions of Rule-9(11) O.C.S (R.A) Rules 1990 keeping in view of the above settled position of law within a time bound period for the interest of justice. And may further be pleased to pass any other order(s), direction(s) as deems fit & proper for the bonafide interest of justice.” Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted 4. that earlier the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) // 2 // No.26207 of 2023, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.08.2023 with the following observation:- “Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.3-Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar-Cuttack to consider and dispose of the application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. It is needless to mention here that while considering the case of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.3 shall be acted by the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethi's case (supra). The decision so taken by Opposite Party No.3 be also communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.” 5. After disposal of the said writ application the petitioner approached the Opposite Parties No.3, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, to consider the application of the petitioner. The Opposite Parties vide letter dated 05.01.2024 rejected the application of the petitioner by referring to Rule 9(6) of O.C.S. (RA) Rules, 1990 i.e. on the ground that the petitioner has submitted his application after lapse of three years one month and twenty days. Such delay is being disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referring to Rule 9(11) submitted that the rule provides for the process to be followed in case where the application has been filed with delay. He further contended that sub rule 11 of rule 9 provides that notwithstanding the period of limitation as provided under rule 9(6), the delay in submission of application may be condoned by the Government in concerned Administrative Department by an order to that effect, subject to the satisfaction of the reason shown for such delay. Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 6. In the aforesaid context learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Opposite Party No.3 without referring to the provisions of Rule 9(11) and without following the process prescribed therein has arbitrarily rejected the application of the petitioner only by referring to rule 9(6). He further contended that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for such delay, i.e. the mother of the petitioner was ailing during said period of delay. As a result of which the petitioner could not apply immediately. It was also contended that under Rule 9(11) the application could have been forwarded to the Government, i.e. Government Administrative Department, for consideration in terms of sub rule 11. However, the same has not been forwarded in case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore contended that the impugned rejection order is unsustainable in law. 7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application the Opposite party No.3 has considered the case of the petitioner. Further, the application submitted by the petitioner has been disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order under Annexure-7 to the writ application. Since there was a delay in approaching the authorities, the application of the petitioner has been rightly rejected under Rule 9(6) of the O.C.S. (RA) Rules, 1990. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in passing the order under Annexure-7. 8. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful consideration of submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record, Page 3 of 5 // 4 // this Court is of the view that the objective of filing an application under the aforesaid rehabilitation assistance scheme is to provide support to the family of the deceased Government employees who are in a distressful condition following the demise of such employee. Therefore, it can be gathered that such rule is beneficial in nature. On perusal of impugned rejection under Annexure-7 this Court observes that the Opposite Party No.3 has rejected the application of the petitioner only on the ground of delay in approaching the authorities for appointment on compassionate ground. On a careful analysis of the rules this Court observes that Rule 9(11) provides for condonation of such delay by the Government in the appropriate Administrative Department. Therefore, the Opposite Parties have arbitrarily not sent the petitioner’s application to the concerned Administrative Department for condonation of delay in preferring such application for appointment on compassionate ground. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside the order under Annexure-7 passed by this Opposite Party No.3. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.01.2024 under Annexure- 7 is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.3 for reconsideration. In the event there is a delay in submitting the application then the procedure prescribed in rule 9 Sub rule 11 shall be adhered to by the Opposite Party No.3 while taking a final decision on the application of the petitioner. Any development in the matter shall be intimated to the petitioner by the Opposite Party No.3. Further it is directed that entire process be carried out within a period of three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. Further in the event the application for condonation delay is forwarded to the Government, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the Page 4 of 5 // 5 // same in accordance with law and keeping in view the grounds taken in condonation application and every endeavor shall be made by Opposite Party No.1 to dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date on which it reaches the office of Opposite party No.1. The final decision so taken by the authorities be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such decision. 9. With the aforesaid observation, direction the writ petition is disposed of. Rubi (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 04-Mar-2024 18:42:01 Page 5 of 5