The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.13858 of 2025 Amir Swain ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties -versus- Represented By Adv. –
Legal Reasoning
Smt. B.K. Sahu, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 16.05.2025 01. 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 record. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:- i) Direct the opp. parties to give appointment to the petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in terms of Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules 1990 read with Notification dated 05.02.2010, which was prevalent at the time of death of his father on 11.7.2005 in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa, Civil Appeal No.4103 of 2022, disposed of on 20.05.2022 Page 1 of 4. and The State of Madhya Pradesh and others vrs. A shish Awasthi in Civil Appeal No.6903 and 6904 of 2021, decided vide judgment dt. 18.11.2021 reported in 2021 (II) OLR (SC )- 1072 & Ajit Ku. Barik Vrs. State of Orissa reported in 2018 (II) OLR 10 and Biswajit Swain v. State of Odisha & others reported in 2024 (I) O LR 190 ; ii) ii) Pass such other order (s)/direction(s) as would be deem fit and proper in the bonafide interest of Justice.” 4. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the letter dated 11.06.2024 issued by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Berhampur (Opposite Party No.3) wherein the Opposite Party No.3 has refused to consider the application of the Petitioner for Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, although he is the appointing and disciplinary authority and competent to consider the case of the Petitioner. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner died on 11.07.2005 and is covered under the OCS(RA) Rules, 1990. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that although the application has been submitted by the petitioner on 12.02.2012, the Authority sat over the matter and finally by virtue of the impugned order under Annexure-4, the same came to the light. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that let the Authority be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian Bank vs. Promila, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Amit Shrivas, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 496, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The Secretary to Govt., Department of Education (Primary) Page 2 of 4. & Ors. vs. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa (Civil Appeal No.7722 of 2021) as well as in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ashish Awasthi, reported in 2021(II) OLR (SC) 1072. It is also submitted that basing on the said order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court the petitioner Malaya Nanda Sethi vrs. State of Odisha and others, has been provided with the appointment vide order dated 13.06.2022 of the Government in the Excise Department. Moreover, it is also submitted that when similar issue was raised before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave (C) No.12740 of 2022. Hon’ble Apex Court relying on the decision of Malaya Nanda Sethi vrs. State of Odisha and others remanded the matter for consideration in the light of the judgment passed in the aforesaid Civil Appeal No.4103 of 2022. 7. Having heard leaned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court observes that the letter/order dated 11.06.2024 under Annexure-4 is not in accordance with law and therefore, the same is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Berhampur (Opposite Party No.3) and looking to the date of death of the deceased and involving whom the appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme is sought for and the date of application for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, this Court directs that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Berhampur (Opposite Party No.3) to look into the claim of the Petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law, taking into account the judgment of this Court in Biswajit Swain v. State of Odisha, reported in 2024 (I) OLR 190 as well as judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Indian Page 3 of 4. Bank vs. Promila, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Amit Shrivas, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 496; The Secretary to Govt., Department of Education (Primary) & Ors. vs. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa (Civil Appeal No.7722 of 2021); State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ashish Awasthi, reported in 2021(II) OLR (SC) 1072; and in The State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. Etc. Etc. (Civil Appeal Nos.8842-8855 of 2022 decided on 3rd March, 2023) wherein the Apex Court in a clear and categorical term observed that the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee is only to be considered and not the subsequent policy and pass a speaking and reasoned order by giving appointment to the Petitioner under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, subject to availability of vacancies taking into account the Notification dated 04.04.2025 of the G.A.&P.G. Department, Government of Odisha, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 21-May-2025 14:21:04 Page 4 of 4.