The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.5857 of 2025 Sitaram Jani ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Tapan Ku. Jena Samanta ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.K.Parhi, A.S.C. -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Development Commissioner -cum- additional Chief Secretary To Govt., Department Of Water Resources. 3) Engineer -in-chief (water Resouces Department) , Govt. Of Odisha. 4) Executive Engineer, Department Of Irrigation, Division-iii, Harabhangi Irrigation Division.
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 03.03.2025 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 petition as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “In view of the above, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to; a) Issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause Page 1 of 5. as to why the petitioner shall not be appointed under Rehabilitation Appointment Scheme; b) if the 0pp. Parties failed to show cause or show insufficient or false cause make the Rule NISI absolute and allow this writ petition with cost; c) And pass such other suitable and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice.” 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner, namely Laxman Jani, was initially appointed as a Peon in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division No.1 Padagaon on 01.05.1981. While continuing in service, the father of the petitioner died on 17.07.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for a job under the compassionate appointment scheme on 04.02.2019. Such application of the petitioner was initially disposed of on 17.02.2022 by the Opposite Party No.3 in terms of the GA Department notification dated 17.02.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner approach the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 on a several occasions for reconsideration of such decision and to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground under the O.C.S. (RA) Rules,1990. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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 Page 2 of 5. 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. Referring to the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since death of the deceased Govt. employee had occurred prior to the date on which the new rules came into force and that application was submitted much prior to the O.C.S. (RA) Rules, 2020 came into force, the Opposite parties should have considered the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by applying the provisions of O.C.S.(RA) Rules, 1990 instead of the Rules of the year 2020 and the notification of the GA & PG Department dated 17.02.2020. He further contended that the provision in the shape of Rule 6(9) as well as notification dated 17.02.2020 has already been declared ultra vires and this Court in the above-noted case of Biswajit Swain supra. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the case of the petitioner was duly considered and the same has been rejected vide order dated 17.02.2022 by applying the provisions of the O.C.S. (RA) Rules, 2020 and keeping in view the GA & PG Department notification dated 17.02.2020. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that the Opposite Parties have committed no illegality in rejecting the appliation of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate Page 3 of 5. ground, and as such, the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed at this juncture. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the submissions made by the learned counsels, further on a careful scrutiny of the documents annexed to the writ application, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in the above-noted judgments, this Court is of the view that the application made by the petitioner should have been considered under the O.C.S. (RA) Rules, 1990. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, without being influenced by the order dated 17.02.2022 and further taking into consideration the judgments referred to hereinabove. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 along with a copy of today’s order within two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner in the manner as has been directed hereinabove and redress the grievance of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order by the petitioner. The final decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. Page 4 of 5. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Mar-2025 16:32:06