The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.11937 of 2024 Jitray Murmu ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Babita Kumari Pattanaik -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – N.K.Praharaj, A.G.A. 1) State Of Odisha 2) Engineer-in-chief, W.r. Dept., Odisha 3) Superintendent Engineer, Mechanical Circle, Hirakud 4) Executive Engineer, Drilling And Grouting Division No. I, Berhampur 5) Executive Engineer, Stores And Building Bhuban 6) Asst. Executive Engineer, Drilling And Grouting Sub-division, Baripada
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 14.05.2024 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State Opposite Parties. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioners has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for Page 1 of 5. the records and after hearing both the parties pass the following reliefs ; i) To declare the action of the Opposite Parties in rejecting the case of for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance scheme in accordance with the provision made under 2020 Rule. the petitioner ii) To direct the Opp.parties to consider the case of petitioner for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in accordance with the provision made under OCS(RA) Rules, 1990 as per the ratio decided in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Odisha. And pass such other order/orders as may be eemed fit and proper for the interest of justice.” 4. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner, while working under State Government as a Work Charge Employee, died in harness on 22.08.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner, being one of the legal heirs, submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 15.05.2019. Since no action was taken on the application of the petitioner and no communication was received by the petitioner, the petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act and in reply to such RTI inquiry the Public Information Officer of the Additional Chief Engineer (M) Mechanical service informed the petitioner vide letter dated 21.12.2023 that the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was considered in terms of the GA&PG Department notification dated 17.02.2020 and such application of the petitioner has been rejected as the petitioner failed to score the required points under the O.C.S.(RA) Rules, 2020. Such decision to reject the application of the petitioner has communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 14.08.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submitted that the petitioner had never Page 2 of 5. received any such communication dated 14.08.2020 as has been stated in the letter under Annexure-4 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by such rejection of the application for appointment on compassionate ground submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. In course of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1, State of West Bengal-v.-Debabrata Tiwri reported in (2023 (3) SCALE-557,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. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground ought to be considered by the Opposite Parties under the Rule prevailing at the time of consideration of such application. He further submitted that since the death of the Government employee occurred in the year 2018 and the application was submitted immediately thereafter and within the period of limitation, such application submitted by the petitioner should have been considered under the O.C.S. (RA) Rules, 1990 as has been enumerated in the abovenoted judgments. 5. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner under the provisions of the O.C.S.(RA) Rules, 2020. He further referred to Rule 6(9) of the 2020 Rules which provides that all pending applications are to be considered under the 2020 Rules. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted Page 3 of 5. that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality and as such submitted that the writ application is devoid of merit and hence the same should be dismissed at the threshold. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered in terms of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal-v.-Debabrata Tiwri reported in (2023 (3) SCALE-557 and not the law laid down by laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record, this Court observed that there is no dispute with regard to the date of death of the deceased Government employee and the date of application submitted by the petitioner. The only question that is required to be adjudicated in the present writ application is with regard to the applicability of the relevant rules to the facts of the present case. On a careful analysis of the judgments referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the question with regard to the rule applicable to the facts of the present petitioner’s case is nor more res integra. The issue has already been discussed in detail in the abovenoted judgments and it has been crystalized that rule that was applicable at the date of death of the deceased Government employee shall be applicable to the R.A. applications filed by the legal heirs of such deceased employee. In such view of the mater, the impugned rejection order which was communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 22.12.2023 as well as original communication dated 14.08.2020 is hereby quashed. Further, the matter remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2 to Page 4 of 5. consider the matter afresh in terms of the aforesaid observation and the judgments referred to hereinabove. Further, while considering the case of the petitioner the Opposite Parties shall also take into consideration the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court State of West Bengal-v.-Debabrata Tiwri reported in (2023 (3) SCALE-557. The case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground shall be considered in terms of the aforesaid judgments and the same shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order by the petitioner. The final decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such decision. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-May-2024 19:37:00 Page 5 of 5.