The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.8869 of 2023 Sri Durga Prasad Das …. Petitioner Mr. Baijayanti Mohanty, Advocate State of Odisha and others -versus- …. Opp. Parties Mr. Saswat Das, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 31.03.2023 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 Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the Writ Petition, call for the records from the Opposite Parties, issue Rule Nisi, calling upon the Opp. Parties as to why the petitioner will not be appointed as a Junior Clerk as per the then prevailing rules e.g. 1990 Rules. // 2 // And in the event the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said Rule be made Absolute and the Writ Petition be allowed directing the Opposite Parties to appoint the petitioner in Group-C post as the subsequent amendment in 2020 will not be a bar for his appointment and the same will not eb applicable in this case, And may further be pleased to pass any other order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.” 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the father of the Petitioner, Late Dipak Kumar Das, who was working as Khalasi (Work Charged) under the Water Resources Department, died on 10.01.2012 in harness. Thereafter, the Petitioner being the legal heir of his deceased father submitted an application before the competent authority for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme along with the required documents within the time limit. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that on receipt of application, the Opposite Party No.4-the Executive Engineer, Mahanadi South Division, Jobra, Cuttack forwarded the same to the Collector, Jagatsighpur for issue of Distress Certificate on 06.06.2012 and the // 3 // Collector Jagatsinghpur submitted the certificate on 31.10.2012 after due inquiry by the Tahasildar, Tirtol as per rules. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that after receiving the above proposal for necessary action, Opposite Party No.2-the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources, Odisha, Bhubaneswar wrote a letter to the Petitioner to submit the medical unfit certificate of his mother vide Memo No.6350 dated 31.05.2013 and the Petitioner complied the same by submitting the medical certificate of his mother to the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources, Odisha, Bhubaneswar under Annexure-3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Opposite Party No.3-Superintending Engineer, Eastern Circle, Cuttack returned the application along with all the enclosures to the Executive Engineer, Mahanadi South Division, Cuttack vide letter dated 17.07.2013 indicating therein to submit the required information/documents sought for by the Engineer-in-Chief as per letter No.6349 dated 31.05.2013. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.3-Superintending Engineer, Eastern Circle, Cuttack resubmitted the proposal for appointment of the Petitioner to the Engineer-in-Chief on 01.02.2014 under intimation to the Petitioner vide Memo No.891 dated 1.02.2014. It is further submitted by the // 4 // learned counsel for the Petitioner that on receipt of the above letter dated 01.02.2014 under Annexure-5, the Opposite Party No.2-the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources, Odisha, Bhubaneswar did not take any action and sat over the matter for more than seven years in spite of several personal approaches of the Petitioner to all the Opposite Parties. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Director Personnel office of the Engineer-in- Chief, Water Resources, Odisha, Bhubaneswar returned the application of the Petitioner vide his letter dated 27.07.2021 to the Additional Chief Engineer, Eastern Circle-I, Cuttack indicating therein that as they have not yet received the Medical unfit Certificate in respect of Smt. Sarojini Das (mother of the Petitioner), the application of the Petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme be evaluated strictly following the provision laid down in G.A. & P.G. Department Notification No.5651 dated 17.02.2020 and subsequent clarification thereof vide G.A. & P.G. Department letter No.6999/Gen dated 02.03.2021. A copy of the said letter communicated to the Petitioner vide Memo No.19747 dated 02.08.2021. Being aggrieved by the said letter, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition. In this context, learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the judgment // 5 // rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1. Relying the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the application of the Petitioner needs to be considered in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, submitted that during the pendency of the application submitted by the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, a new rule was enacted in the year 2020. Therefore, the authorities, by referring to the new rules, have rejected the application to the petitioner. However, he does not dispute on passing the impugned order and the authorities have not considered the law laid down in the case of the Malaya Nanda Sethy(supra). He further submits that he has no objection, if a direction is given to the authorities to consider the grievance petition of the petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, this Court disposes of the writ // 6 // application at the stage of admission by setting aside the impugned letter under Annexure-6, so far it relates to the Petitioner, and further the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider and dispose of the application of the Petitioner strictly in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others, reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1; and The State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. Etc. Etc. (Civil Appeal Nos.8842-8855 of 2022 decided on 3rd March, 2023) by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Any decision so taken on the same shall be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of ten days thereafter. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Debasis ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge