The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.10898 of 2024 Bikram Kumar Bisoi ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Kishore Chandra Pradhan -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Additional Secretary To Govt. Odisha, Transport Dept. 3) Transport Commissioner, Odisha 4) Collector, Cuttack 5) The Principal, Driving Training School ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – D.Mohapatra, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 06.05.2024 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 Standing Counsel. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:
Legal Reasoning
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit the writ application, call for the relevant records from the opp. parties and after hearing both the parties grant the following reliefs:- (i) To quash the order No. 3624 dated 30.03.2024 passed by the opp. party No. 3. (ii) To direct the opp. parties to consider the case of the petitioner and to pass an order of his appointment against Page 1 of 6. Class - IV post. (iii) To direct the opp. parties to appoint the petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. (iv) To direct the opp. parties to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner within a stipulated period. And pass any other order/orders as would be deem fit and proper as facts and circumstances of the case.” 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the father of the Petitioner who was working under the Transport Commissioner i.e. Opposite Party No.3 died in harness on 07.06.1993. After the death of the father of the present Petitioner, the mother of the Petitioner obtained the death certificate as well as legal heirs’ certificate from the competent authority and submitted an application before the Transport Commissioner for appointment on compassionate ground on 17.08.2009 considering the distressful condition of the family. Such application was kept pending for a long time. Thereafter, the mother of the present Petitioner withdrew her application in favour of the present Petitioner, who happens to be the son of the deceased govt. employee. Accordingly, the present petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 11.02.2012. Thereafter, the Petitioner as well as mother of the Petitioner have been remanding the Transport Dept. for appointment of the Petitioner on compassionate ground to mitigate the distressful condition of the family. However, the Opposite Parties did not pay any due after such request of the family, such application was kept pending for a long time. Finally, the Petitioner was compelled to approach the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.591 of 2019. While the said matter was Page 2 of 6. pending before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was abolished, accordingly the matter was transferred to this Court. A coordinate bench of this
Decision
court vide order dated 29.09.2022 disposed of the writ application of the Petitioner bearing WPC (OAC) No.591 of 2019 with a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of that order. 5. While the matter stood thus, since the opposite parties were not complied with the order dated 29.09.2022, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing CONTC No.1836 of 2023 which was disposed of by this Court on 30.11.2023 by granting further time to the Opposite Parties. Even after, such direction, the Opposite Parties did not comply the earlier direction of this Court, the Petitioner was again approached this Court by filing 2nd contempt application bearing CONTC No.2394 of 2024. While the 2nd contempt application was pending, the Opposite Party No.3 vide his letter dated 30.03.2024 rejected the representation of the Petitioner by applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.C. Santosh vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617. Being aggrieved by such order passed by the Opposite Party No.3, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that facts of the death of the deceased govt. employee in the year 1993, is not disputed by either of parties. He further contended that there is inordinate delay in submitting an application for appointment on compassionate ground. He further contended that the opposite Party No.3 has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the Petitioner by applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Page 3 of 6. Court in N.C. Santosh’s case (supra). He further contended that in the rejection order the Opposite Parties have categorically stated that the Petitioner does not have required educational qualification for appointment any Class-IV post for which the required educational qualification is M.E. pass. However, the Petitioner has read up to Class-V. On such ground, learned counsel for the State submitted that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner. Therefore, the grievance made in the writ application is not liable to entertain at this stage. 7. In reply to the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that although the Petitioner had initially applied by showing his educational qualification as Class-V pass, however, subsequently he has cleared the HSC Examination. It was contended that the judgment N.C. Santosh’s case is not applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the judgment 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 and the judgment of this Court in Suchitra Bal vs. State of Odisha & ors. by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 decided on 16.03.2023 as well as Bindusagar Samantaray vs. State of Odisha & ors. by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.810 of 2021 decided on 25.09.2023 and Biswajit Swain vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 decided on 31.10.2023. Referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the application should have been considered under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful consideration of the background facts as well as materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that with regard to Page 4 of 6. factual background of the present case there is no dispute between the parties. It further appears that the Opposite Parties have rejected the application principally on two grounds, one the Petitioner is lacking the minimum educational qualification for being considered for appointment to a Class-IV post on compassionate ground and that such application is required to be considered under the OCS(RA) Rules, 2020 in view of the judgment in N.C. Santosh vs. State of Karnataka. While considering the case of the Petitioner, this Court is of the view that the Opposite Parties have not taken note of subsequent qualification of the Petitioner as stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner. It also appears that the Opposite parties have wrongly applied in N.C. Santosh’s case to the facts of the present case. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme in Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy’s case (supra) as well of this Court in Suchitra Bal’s case (supra), Bindusagar Samantaray’s case (supra) and in Biswajit Swain’s case (supra), this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the application of the Petitioner should be considered under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. With regard to the delay in approaching the Opposite Parties for appointment on compassionate ground, liberty is given to the Opposite Parties to raise the same at the time of consideration of the Petitioner’s application under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. Further, the Opposite Parties shall also take into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal-v.-Debabrata Tiwri passed in Civil Appeal No.8842 of 2022 decided on 3rd of March, 2023 reported in (2023 (3) SCALE-557 and accordingly dispose of the application of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. Since the matter is remanded back to Page 5 of 6. the Opposite Party No.3 and to reconsider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the aforesaid analysis, the impugned order dated 30.03.2024 under Annexure-19 is hereby set aside. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.3 be communicated to the Petitioner within a period two weeks from the date of taking such a decision. It is further made clear that with regard to delay in filing the application, the Opposite Parties shall do well to take necessary steps under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 for condonation of such delay by the concerned Administrative Dept. as has been provided in the rules. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of. 10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 6 of 6. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-May-2024 13:49:53