The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.6766 of 2025 Allok Kumar Mohanta ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Subhadutta Routray ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr.M.R.Mohanty, AGA -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest,bbsr 3) Regional Chief Conservator Of Forest,bartipada 4) Divisional Forest Officer,karanjia Division CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 12.03.2025 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 Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to : i) ii) iii) Admit the writ application. Call for the record. Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Page 1 of 5. iv) v) or the Opp.Parties more particularly Opposite Party No.4 to show cause as to why the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 issued by Opposite Party no.4 under Annexure-7 shall not be quashed. If the Opp.Parties fails to show cause or show insufficient cause make the Rule absolute by issuing writ in the nature of other writ/writs, certiorari any direction/directions order/orders, by impugned order dated quashing 28.06.2024 issued by Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-7. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or order/orders, any writ/writs, other direction/directions the particularly Parties more Opposite Opposite Party No.4 to consider the case rehabilitation of appointment in terms of the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, the order dated 08.02.2024 1990 and passed in W.P.(C) No.2846 of 2024 under Annexure-6 within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court. the Petitioner directing for by vi) And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper for the ends of justice.” 4.
Legal Reasoning
It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that being aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for appointment on compassionate ground vide order dated 28.06.2024 under Annexure-7, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that Page 2 of 5. earlier the Petitioner has approached this Court and on last occasion in W.P.(C) No.2846 of 2024 wherein this Court, vide order dated 08.02.2024, while setting aside the impugned rejection order has specifically directed the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner under OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 as amended in the year 2016. It is further contended that after disposal of the aforesaid Writ Petition, the Petitioner again approached the Opposite Party No.4 and the Opposite Party No.4 vide his order dated 28.06.2024 under Annexure-7 has once again rejected the application of the Petitioner on the ground that the discrepancies as noticed in item Nos. 1 to 3 by the Committee Members was not supplied by the Petitioner. As such, the application of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that the discrepancies as pointed out by the Committee Members was informed to the Petitioner. He further contended that the aforesaid details are available with the Petitioner and he has annexed the same to the present Writ Petition as Annexure-8. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Opposite Parties have committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the Petitioner without providing an opportunity to the Petitioner to rectify the same. On such ground, it was contended that the impugned rejection order dated 28.06.2024 is unsustainable in law and accordingly the same be quashed. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that pursuant to the order dated 08.02.2024 Page 3 of 5. in W.P.(C) No. 2846 of 2024, the case of the Petitioner was duly considered by the Opposite Parties and since the said information were lacking, the application of the Petitioner could not be considered. Accordingly, the same has been rejected as the Opposite Parties were required to reply to the same in a time bound manner as this Court directed vide order dated 08.02.2024. As such, the learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the present Writ Petition does not call for any interference of this Court. 8. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the documents annexed to the Writ Petition and taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, this Court observes that the application of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that certain discrepancies were found in the application of the Petitioner. On careful examination of the provisions contained in OCS (RA) Rule, 1990, it is clear that the same is a beneficial legislation and the Opposite Parties should have provided an opportunity to the Petitioner to take steps for removal of discrepancies. However, without resorting to the aforesaid fact, the Opposite Parties have straight away rejected the application of the Petitioner thereby depriving the Petitioner from being considered for appointment on compassionate ground. On such ground, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid rejection order dated 28.06.2024 under Page 4 of 5. Annexure-7 is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the said order is set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to Opposite Party No.4 to consider the matter afresh taking into consideration the information provided by the Petitioner in reply to the discrepancies pointed out by the Opposite Parties while considering the application of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the application of the Petitioner be considered afresh and dispose of by passing a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of taking such decision. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within 10 days thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ
Decision
application stands disposed of. 10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5. Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 13-Mar-2025 16:32:23