The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15649 of 2023 Rashmi Ranjan Nayak …. Petitioner State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.K. Das-1, Advocate -versus-
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.C. Das. A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 19.07.2023 02. 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 writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: is “It therefore humbly prayed this Hon’ble Court may be kind and gracious enough to issue “RULE NISI” calling upon the opposite parties to show cause and if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, then make the rule absolute; that And issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the rejection order dt.24.11.2021 under Annexure-13 passed by the Director (OP No.2); // 2 // And issue a Writ of Mandamus and direct the Opposite Parties No.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner within a stipulated period; And further be pleased to pass any order/orders as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;”. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the father of the of the petitioner, namely, Late Mrutyunjay Nayak, who was working as a Junior Engineer under the office of the Assistant Soil Conservation Officer (ASCO), Jharsuduga died in harness due to throat cancer and while he was treating in S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, passed away on 18.11.1986. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was aged about 5 years old. Since the deceased Government employee leaving behind his wife, three daughters and a son (present petitioner). The wife and daughters of the deceased Government employee did not apply for appointment on compassionate ground. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, he was minor at the time of death of his father. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the application of the petitioner under R.A. Scheme for appointment on compassionate for the first time applied on 28.02.2009. By that time, three sisters, who were elder than the petitioner have got married. The petitioner and his mother were staying together. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the application of the petitioner for appointment // 3 // on compassionate ground was kept till 2021 by the Opposite Parties. Challenging such inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.3154 of 2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.10.2021 with a direction to the Director, Soil Conservation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to consider the representation of the petitioner. Finally, vide order dated 24.11.2021 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition, the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the Opposite Party No.2. 6. On a careful examination of the rejection order under Annexure-13, this Court finds that the application for appointment on compassionate ground of the petitioner was considered under O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990. However, the Opposite Party No.2 has rejected the same on the ground that three other legal heirs were above him in order of preference as mentioned in the legal heir certificate. On consideration all the factual grounds, this Court is of the considered view that the authorities, while considering the case of the petitioner, are not conducted any enquiry and have not applied their mind three daughters of the deceased Government employee were married by that time and the case of the petitioner is taken up for consideration. 7. Moreover, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the wife of the Government employee is not // 4 // medically fit to be engaged for performing any job. 8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the Opposite Party No.2, after considering the case of the petitioner as per rule application, has rejected the case of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order dated 24.11.2021. He further submitted that the impugned order under Annexure-13 needs no interference by exercising its jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is also submitted by learned counsel for the State the present writ application should be dismissed. 9. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the factual background of the case and the impugned order under Annexure-13 to the writ application, this Court is of the considered view that the ground of rejection of application of the petitioner after keeping pending more than a decade by the Opposite Party No.2 without assigning any identical ground and the ground mentioned in the rejection order is not acceptable and had not conducted any enquiry and the impugned order has been passed, which is in a mechanical manner. This Court has no hesitation in setting aside the impugner order dated 24.11.2021 under Annexure-13. Accordingly, the same is setting aside. 10. Accordingly, it is directed that the Opposite Parties shall do well to consider the case of the petitioner afresh after // 5 // providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to show-cause with regard to in discrepancy in the adjudication. Further, the application of the petitioner shall be considered and disposed of within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Further the Opposite Party No.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner as per law laid down by 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 State of West Bengal vrs. Debabrata Tiwari passed in Civil Appeal No.8842 of 2022 decided on 3rd of March, 2023 reported in (2023 (3) Scale-557) within the aforesaid time. Any decision so taken on the same shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of ten days thereafter. 11. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Jagabandhu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Secretary-in-Charge Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 19-Jul-2023 19:06:01