The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6494 of 2023 Nitesh Kumar Pujhari …. Petitioner State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. L. Samal, Advocate -versus- Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 13.03.2023 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. 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: “The petitioner, therefore pray your lordship may graciously be pleased to admit the Writ Application and issued a Rule Nisi to the Opposite Parties more particularly direct the Opp. Party No.2 to appoint the petitioner as a Peon under his administrative control under R.A. Scheme by considering the case of the petitioner under the old R.A. Rules, 1992 or 2016 within a stipulated time period as the petitioner’s father was expired on 26.10.2015.” 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the // 2 // father of the petitioner, who was working as Accounts Officer in the Office of the of the Chief-Engineer and Director, Ground Water Development, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 died due to harness on 26.10.2015. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was a minor. However, the petitioner attains majority on 27.08.2019. Therefore, as per Rules, he has submitted his application within one year from the date of attains his majority i.e. 26.08.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when the petitioner become eligible and during limit for submission application for compassionate appointment within the period which was completely over showed by outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic situation of the entire country as well as State. In view of the law laid down and showed department of the Government intermittently the offices were not functioning normally and they were not allowed the public inside the offices. As such, the petitioner could not submit his application for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Paragraphs-4, 5 and 6 of the writ petition submitted that the delay, if any, is unintentional and due to external factor which is beyond control of the present petitioner for convenience Paragraphs-4, 5 and 6 are extracted herein below:- “4. That it is humbly submitted here that when the father of the petitioner breathed his last i.e. on 26.10.2015, the R.A. Rules, 1992 was in force. Even if the R.A. amended Rules, 2016 was not come into force at that point of time. The petitioner was became a major i.e. attend the age of 18 years on 27.08.2019 and the outer time limit for submitting the R.A. application was 26.08.2020. it is to be specifically stated here that by the time the outer limit was // 3 // expired, the Pandemic disease of Covid-19 has already been affected the entire country including our State of Odisha for which the petitioner could not able to submit his R.A. application in due time. Moreover the petitioner is a S.T. category candidate and residing in a remote area like Kalahandi District, therefore the delay has been caused. That it is humbly submitted here that under the 5. R.A. Rules relaxation provision is also available for condonation of delay by the employer. 6. That it is humbly submitted here that as the father of the petitioner was expired much before the commencement of R.A. Rules, 2020, therefore, the case of the petitioner should be consider by the O.P. No.2 either by applying the provisions of R.A. Rules, 1992 or R.A. Amended Rules, 2016. The Hon’ble High Court has already decided the issue in W.P.(C) No.26372/2022 in the matter of Santosh Kumar Barik vrs. State of Odisha and others, wherein this Hon’ble Court have decided that R.A. appointment will be considered as per Rule prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee. While deciding so this Hon’ble Court have followed the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malayananda Sethi vrs. State of Odisha and others reported in 2022(II) OLR SC-1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that the appellant therein shall be entitled for his appointment on compassionate ground as per the rules involved at the time of the death of the concerned employee. The copy of the order dtd.19.10.2022 passed is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-11.” in W.P.(C) No.26372/2022 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner submitted his R.A. application only on 12.04.2022. After restrictions imposed during the Covid-19 Pandemic situation lifted by the Government offices, started function normally. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Opposite Parties may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate // 4 // ground by condoning delay. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has not submitted his application within the time as has been prescribed in rules. He further contended that the mother of the petitioner, who was eligible when the father of the petitioner died, had not submitted any application for appointment under the R.A. Rules on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the State further contended that since the petitioner and other family members of the deceased are Government employees survives so many years after the death of the deceased Government employee. Therefore, there is no financial stringency in the matter. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon careful consideration of their respective submissions and further upon conspectus of back ground facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that no doubt there is delay in submitting the application for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, however, the same shall be condoned by the State Government in appropriate cases. 9. Considering the grounds taken in the present case for condonation of delay, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter directs the Opposite Parties to consider the same sympathetically and condone the delay under the provisions of the Rules. Further, Chief-Engineer and Director, Ground Water Development, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme under the provisions of Rules. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months // 5 // from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Any decision so taken on the said representation shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter. 10. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Jagabandhu ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge