The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2024 10:45:05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9359 of 2024 Pradipta Kumar Diani …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 19.04.2024 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “In the facts and circumstances stated above, the humble petitioner fervently prays that this Hon’ble Court would be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition, issue notice to the Opposite Parties as to why the letter letter dated dated 29.07.2020 under Annexure-3, 14.09.2021 under Annexure-4 and letter dated 07.02.2022 under Annexure-5 shall not be quashed declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary and as to why they shall not be directed to give appointment to the petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, 1990 within a time stipulated by this Hon’ble Court; And if the Opposite Parties failed to show cause or shown insufficient cause the Rule shall be made absolute directing to give appointment the petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, 1990 within a time stipulated by this Hon’ble Court”. the Opposite Parties to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2024 10:45:05 4. // 2 // Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that on the death of the Petitioner’s father on 03.03.2018 so reflected in Annexure-1, Petitioner being the son of the deceased employee made his application to get the benefit of appointment under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on 07.05.2018 under Annexure-2. 4.1. It is contended that even though Petitioner made the application to get the benefit of appointment within the prescribed time period, but the same was never considered and disposed of in accordance with the rules prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee. In the alternate on the face of the application made under Annexure-2, Petitioner vide letter dtd.29.07.2020 under Annexure-3 so issued by Opposite Party No.4, was requested to make a fresh application in terms of the provisions contained under OCS (RA) Amended Rules, 2020 which came into effect w.e.f. 17.02.2020. 4.2. It is contended that without knowing the true implication of the letter dtd.29.07.2020 under Annexure-3 Petitioner made a fresh application and subsequently when Petitioner was requested to provide various documents for consideration of his claim vide letter dtd.14.09.2021 under Annexure-4 and letter dtd.07.02.2022 under Annexure-5, Petitioner came to know that his application to get the benefit of appointment under RA Scheme will now be considered in Page 2 of 5 // 3 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2024 10:45:05 Amended Rules, 2020. accordance with the provisions contained under the 4.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the deceased employee died on 03.03.2018 and Petitioner made the application on 07.05.2018 under Annexure-2, the same should have been considered and disposed of in accordance with the relevant rules prevailing at the time of the death of the death of the deceased employee. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2022 disposed of on 20.05.2022. It is also contended that since the Petitioner without knowing the true implication of the amended provisions made a fresh application in terms of the direction issued under Annexure-3, but his earlier application submitted under Annexure-2 is required to be considered by Opposite Party No.4 taking into account the rules prevailing at the time of the death of the deceased employee, in view of the decision in the case of Malayananda Sethy. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand contended that since on the face of the application available under Annexure-2, Petitioner in terms of the request made under Annexure-3 has already made an application for its consideration under the Page 3 of 5 // 4 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2024 10:45:05 amended provisions, the prayer as made in the writ petition is not entertainable. 5.1. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand contended that Petitioner be directed to comply the request made by Opposite Party No.4 in its letter dtd.14.09.2021 under Annexure-4 as the request vide letter dtd.07.02.2022 under Annexure-5 has already been complied with submission of Annexure-6. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the deceased employee died on 03.03.2018 and Petitioner made the application to get the benefit of appointment under the RA Scheme on 07.05.2018 under Annexure-2. In view of the decision in the case of Malayananda Sethy, the application so submitted by the Petitioner on 07.05.2018 under Annexure-2 was required to be considered as per the rules prevailing at the time of the death of the deceased employee. Instead of considering the same as per the rules prevailing at the time of the death of the deceased employee, Opposite Party No.4 vide his letter dtd.29.07.2020 under Annexure-3 requested the Petitioner to make a fresh application under the amended provisions, which the Petitioner has also complied. But in view of the decision in the case of Malayananda Sethy, such action of the Opposite Party No.3 in asking the Petitioner to make a fresh application and for its Page 4 of 5 // 5 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2024 10:45:05 permissible. consideration under the Amended Rules, 2020 is not 7. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the communications issued under Annexures-3, 4 & 5. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opposite Party No.3 to consider the application so submitted by the Petitioner on 07.05.2018 under Annexure-2 in the light of the decision in the case of Malayananda Sethy within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Page 5 of 5