The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.11504 of 2024 Chandramani Nayak ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Sadasiva Patra -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Superintending Engineer, Public Health Division, Bhanjanagar ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr.D.Nayak, AGA
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 08.05.2024 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. 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 prayer : “ Under the facts and circumstances stated above, the Petitioner therefore prays that this Hon’ble Court issue appropriate may graciously be pleased to Page 1 of 5. Writ/Writ(s) in the nature of writs of Certiorari quashing the Order No..3945 dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Opp.Party No.2 under Annexure-10. And further be pleased to issue a writ/writ(s) in the nature of writ of Mandamus commanding the opposite Parties to give appoint to the Petitioner in a suitable post as per the Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 within a stipulated time. And pass any other order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the present Petitioner is the son of one Hara Nayak, who happens to be the second wife of late Harish Chandra Nayak, i.e., the deceased Government employee, applied for appointment on compassionate ground to mitigate the distressful condition of the family. Such application was made on 02.06.2000 and the same was rejected vide order dated 11.05.2023 under Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that late Harish Chandra Nayak, who is an Ex-Government employee died in harness on 13.12.1997. Thereafter, the mother of the present Petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground and for payment of service benefit as is due and admissible to the deceased Government employee. The same has not been paid as of now. He also contended that the application of the mother of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that the application for appointment on compassionate ground has not been made in the prescribed format “Annexure-A”. Such fact is evident from the rejection order under Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that at the time of death of the deceased Government Page 2 of 5. employee, the Petitioner was a minor. In the meantime, the Petitioner attained majority. Therefore, the condition of the family continues to remain distressful. As such the Petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground under OCS(RA) Rule, 1990. He further contended that the Opposite Party-authority kept the application of the Petitioner pending for two decades and the same has been rejected on the ground that the said application has not been made in proper format. Referring to the aforesaid ground of rejection, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the same is illegal and arbitrary and as such, the same is not sustainable in law. Further, referring to the order under Annexure-10, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that although the Opposite Parties have not rejected the claim of the mother of the Petitioner, however they have observed that with regard to Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, proper steps can be taken by conducting an enquiry only in the event an application under R.A. scheme is received in proper format. In such view of the matter, learned counsel or the Petitioner submitted that the Opposite Parties be directed to give appointment to the Petitioner on compassionate ground keeping in view the factual background of the present case and the avowed objective of the OCS(RA) Rule to provide support to the deceased Government employee, who is facing financial crisis. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that the application of the mother of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that the same was not in proper format. He further contended that in the impugned rejection order under Annexure-10 it has also been observed that the status of the applicant has not been established as the mother of the Petitioner is Page 3 of 5. admittedly the first wife of the deceased Government employee. It is also contended that the application of the mother of the Petitioner was not considered as the same was not in proper format. On such ground learned Additional Standing Counsel contended that the present Writ Petition is premature and the same is liable to be rejected at this juncture. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on careful examination of the materials on record as well as taking into consideration of the background facts of the present case, and taking into consideration the fact that the application for appointment on compassionate ground having not been rejected under Annexure-10, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to make a fresh representation for appointment within two weeks taking therein all the grounds along with all the relevant documents. In such eventuality the Opposite Party No.2 shall consider the same by taking into consideration the judgments of 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, Suchitra Bal v. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 & batch decided on 27.06.2023 and State of Odisha and others vs. Bindu Sagar Samantaray in W.A.No.810 of 2021, and consider such application under OCS(RA) Rule, 1990 and dispose of the application of the Petitioner within a period of thee months by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking decision. It is further made clear that while making his application, the Petitioner Page 4 of 5. shall also clarify his status as the legal heir of the deceased Government employee, which shall be considered by the Opposite Parties while considering the application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge RKS Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-May-2024 17:58:54