The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.14606 of 2023 Manoranjan Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Rath, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 12.05.2023 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. 3. It is the third journey of the petitioner to before this Court for his appointment under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. It is contended that on the death of the petitioner’s father on 02.08.1986, the wife of the deceased employee made an application before the then B.D.O., Nimapara under Annexure-2 on 05.01.1987 expressing her inability to take up appointment in place of deceased employee because of his ill health. 3.1. Subsequently, the petitioner after attaining his majority made his application for his appointment // 2 // under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in terms of resolution issued by the Government in the department of Education and Youth Services Department dated 20.05.1985 on 14.03.1995 under Annexure-5. It is contended that even though the case of the petitioner was found a genuine case and his case was also recommended by the Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-6, but when no action was taken, the petitioner initially moved the Tribunal in O.A. No.1096(C) of 2007. 3.2. The Tribunal vide order dated 02.05.2007 under
Decision
Annexure-7 disposed of the matter with a direction on the Opposite Party No.1, to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim. As nothing materialized, the petitioner again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.12956 of 2020. This Court vide order dated 29.05.2020 disposed of the matter with a direction on the Opposite Party No.1 once again to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim. On receipt of such order passed by this Court on 29.05.2020, when the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 20.11.2020 under Annexure-8, the petitioner challenging the same once again moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.37132 of 2020. This Court vide order dated 21.01.2021 disposed of the matter by quashing the order at Annexure-8 and with a direction on opposite party no.1 to reconsider the issue by completing the entire exercise within a period of one month. After receipt of such order passed Page 2 of 5 // 3 // by this Court on 21.01.2021, when the claim of the petitioner was again rejected, the petitioner challenging the same approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.11237 of 2021. 3.3. It is contended that vide order dated 30.09.2021, this Court while interfering with the order dated 26.02.2021 directed Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. As the said order was not complied, petitioner filed CONTC No.1193 of 2022 and thereafter another Contempt bearing CONTC No.3332 of 2022. On being communicated with the order passed in the second contempt petition in CONTC No.3332 of 2022, Opposite Party No.2 as like Opposite Party No.1 once again rejected the claim vide office order dated 03.03.2023, inter alia taking the ground that the petitioner raised his claim after almost 10 years of the death of the deceased employee and since appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance is meant for immediate redress of a family, which is not the case in the case of the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner is not entertainable. 3.4. It is also contended that O.P. No.2 in the impugned order has also taken the stand that by the time the application was made by the petitioner, the resolution basing on which, petitioner made his Page 3 of 5 // 4 // application was not in existence with coming into operation of the OCS (R.A.) Rules, 1990. It is also held that in terms of the provisions contained under OCS (R.A.) Rules, 2020, the petitioner does not qualify for his appointment. 3.5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the Opposite Parties intentionally kept the matter pending after receipt of the application from the petitioner in the year 1995 and the recommendation by the Opposite Party No.2 made on 23.03.2000 under Annexure-6. On the face of such recommendation made under Annexure-6, the claim of the petitioner should not have been rejected time and again and thereby compelling the petitioner to approach the Tribunal at the first instance and this Court on 3 (three) occasions. It is also contended that taking into account the death of the deceased employee way back in the year 1986 and the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner under Annexure-6, the ground on which the claim has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 03.03.2023 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Mr. S. Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel though supported the impugned order but fairly contended that the OCS (R.A.) Rules, 2020 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, in view of the Page 4 of 5 // 5 // decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethi Vrs. State of Odisha and Ors. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the attitude of Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 in rejecting the petitioner’s claim on the face of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1096(C) of 2007 and of this Court on 3(three) occasions, this Court is inclined to quash the order dated 03.03.2023 so issued under Annexure-4. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to provide appointment to the petitioner within a period of 2 (two) weeks from today in terms of the recommendation available at Annexure-6. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication of order Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-May-2023 16:54:36 Page 5 of 5