The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.11776 of 2024 Aditya Sharma ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Saswati Mohapatra -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Collector, Nuapada ..... Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Represented By Adv. – Mr. D. Mohapatra, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 14.05.2024 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Order No. 01. 1. 2. counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of case, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to: (i) admit and allow this Writ Application; (ii) quash impugned the Order of rejection, dated 26.09.2023 by Opp.Party No.2 under Annexure-6 by concurrently holding the same as bad, illegal and is not sustainable in the eye of law; Page 1 of 5. Petitioner (iii) direct / order the Opp. Party No.2 to appoint under O.C.S.(Rehabilitation the Assistance) Rules, 1990- Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, within a stipulated period as may be prescribed by this Hon’ble Court for the interest of justice; (iv) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice;” 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the father of the Petitioner, while working as a Process Server in the Tahasil Office of Komna in the District of Nuapada, died in harness on 27.11.2012. Thereafter, the mother of the present Petitioner applied for a job on compassionate ground and submitted an application seeking the period of limitation as prescribed under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. On 07.02.2014, the mother of the Petitioner was included in the list of eligible candidates for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistant Scheme. The recommendation in favour of the mother of the Petitioner got concurrence of the Govt. vide letter dated 03.06.2015. However, no appointment was given to her in the year 2019. In the year 2019, the mother of the Petitioner has declared unfit for govt. job by the competent medical authority vide the certificate dated 09.12.2019. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground. Such application has been rejected vide order dated 10.01.2020. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the application of the present Petitioner was rejected on two grounds; firstly the application was not in proper format and secondly, is the new Rule, i.e., OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 has come into force in the meantime by virtue of GA & PG Department notification dated 17.02.2020. Page 2 of 5. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in the course of his submission further contended that taking into consideration the death of the deceased government employee as well as the date of application for appointment on compassionate ground, the Opposite parties should have considered the case of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. Moreover, in the event, it is found that the application is not in a proper format, reasonable opportunity should not have given to the Petitioner without file an application in a proper format. However, Opposite Parties have committed an illegality by rejecting the application of the present Petitioner by applying the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020. 6. With regard to the applicability of the Rules, learned counsel for the Petitioner, drew attention of this Court to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa and others: reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1 and a Division Bench of this Court in Suchitra Bal v. State of Odisha & others bearing W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 decided on 16.03.2021 and Bindusagar Samantaray v. State of Odisha and others bearing W.A. No.810 of 2021 decided on 25.09.2023 and the judgment dated 31.10.2023 in Biswajit Swain v. State of Odisha and others bearing W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021, submitted before this Court that the application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is to be considered under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 as has been held by this Court in the above noted judgments. In such view of the matter leaned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the conduct of the Opposite Parties in rejecting the application of the Petitioner is unsustainable in law. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the application of the Petitioner has been rejected since it was not made Page 3 of 5. in a proper format. He further contended that such application was considered in terms of the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020, which was in force at the time of consideration of such application. He further contended that at the relevant point of time the new Rule was in force and in view of Rule-6 (9) of the new Rules all pending applications were to be considered under the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020. Since the Petitioner was not found eligible under the new Rules, his application has been rejected by the Opposite Parties. In such view of the matter learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the opposite parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the application submitted by the Petitioner. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts of the Petitioner’s case as well as the materials on record, this Court observes that there is no dispute with regard to the factual aspect of the present case. It further appears that the father of the present Petitioner died in the year 2012 and initially application of the mother was accepted and her name was recommended for appointment. However, due to her illness, she was found unfit for any govt. job. Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted an application in the year 2019, i.e., two months prior to the new Rules of the year 2020 came into force. However, the Opposite Parties have rejected the same in view of the provision of the new Rules and also on the ground that the application of the Petitioner was not in proper format. In such view of the matter, taking into consideration the grounds of rejection as mentioned in the impugned rejection order, this Court is of the view that such grounds are unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-6 dated 26.09.2023 is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is Page 4 of 5. remanded back to Opposite Party No.2-Collector, Nuapada, to reconsider the case of the Petitioner in terms of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 and in view of the judgments referred to hereinabove. While considering the case of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.2 shall also take into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari passed in Civil Appeal No.8842 of 2022 decided on 3rd of March, 2023 reported in 2023(3) SCALE-557. Further, it is directed that the application of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order in terms of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. A final decision in that regard shall be taken within a period of two months. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such decision. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. S.K. Rout ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Page 5 of 5. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-May-2024 19:58:58