The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17366 of 2023 Hina Sethi …. Appellant Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate State of Odisha & Others -versus- …. Respondents Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA Mr.A.K. Mishra(2), Adv. for O.P.3 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 29.02.2024 Order No. I.A. No.19914 of 2023 12. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Considering the grounds taken in the I.A., the order dtd.06.06.2023 is hereby recalled by restoring W.P.(C) No.17366 of 2023 to its file. 3.
Decision
Accordingly, the I.A stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge I.A. No. of 2024 13. 2. I.A filed in Court be Registered. 3. Considering the grounds taken in the I.A, the prayer for impletion of party is allowed. // 2 // 4. The scheduled named person be impleaded as Opposite Party No.5. 5. Consolidated copy of the relevant pages filed in Court be placed in the appropriate place. 6. Accordingly, the I.A stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge W.P.(C) No.17366 of 2023 14. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 2. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the above circumstance, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by quashing the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the opposite party no.3 under Annexure-8 to the writ petition. And this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the opposite parties, more particularly the opposite parties 3 and 4 to issue appointment order to the petitioner under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, as per the rule that was in force at the time of death of the deceased government employee, i.e. Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, befitting to his educational qualification in terms of the ratio decision in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethi (supra) within a stipulated period”. 3. It is contended that Petitioner’s father while working in the establishment of Opposite Party No.4, he died on 02.05.2015. On the death of the Petitioner’s father, Petitioner being the son of the deceased made his application to get the benefit of Page 2 of 6 // 3 // appointment under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. 4. It is contended that on receipt of the application and on being forwarded, Collector, Ganjam also issued the distress certificate on 04.09.2017. But on the face of the same, the claim of the Petitioner was kept pending and ultimately it was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.17.10.2022 under Annexure-8. 4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner’s father died on 02.05.2015, rules governing the field at the time of the death of the deceased employee is required to be followed while considering the claim of the Petitioner in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethi vs. State of Orissa & Others. But Opposite Party No.3 by following the amended provisions of OCS (RA) Amended Rules, 2020 rejected the claim, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.2. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside with a direction on the Opposite Parties to provide appointment to the Petitioner by considering his grievance as per the rules prevailing at the time of death of the deceased employee. 5. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the University on the other hand contended that after being declared as a University, Government though has Page 3 of 6 // 4 // sanctioned various posts, but no Class-IV post has been created by the Government and accordingly the University is not competent to provide appointment to the Petitioner as against any Class-IV post as no such post was created by the Government while creating various posts vide order dtd.18.09.2021. It is accordingly contended that since no post is available in the establishment of Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4, application of the Petitioner was wrongly rejected and now has been forwarded to the Government to take appropriate action in the matter. 6. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on instruction contended that on receipt of the proposal from the University, the claim of the Petitioner has been forwarded to Opposite Party No.5 for consideration of his claim as per the prevailing rules vide letter dtd.28.02.2024. Copy of the letter dtd.28.02.2024 so produced by learned AGA in Court be kept in record. 6.1. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the Opposite parties, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the matter has now been referred to Opposite Party No.5 by the Government-Opposite Party No.1, appropriate direction be issued to Opposite Party No.5 to consider the claim of the Petitioner and provide appointment to the Petitioner under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, Page 4 of 6 // 5 // this Court finds that Petitioner’s father while working in the establishment of Opposite Party No.3 and 4, he died on 02.05.2015. Petitioner made the application to get the benefit of appointment under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme within time. On consideration of the application, Collector, Ganjam also issued the distress certificate in favour of the Petitioner. But thereafter the claim of the Petitioner though was rejected by Opposite Party No.4 vide order dtd.17.10.2022 under Annexure-8 by holding the Petitioner ineligible to get the benefit, but this Court when initially passed an order on 06.06.2023 directing Opposite Party No.3 for reconsideration of the claim, Opposite Party No.3 vide different letters requested Opposite Party No.1 to provide necessary instruction for consideration of the claim of the Petitioner. On receipt of such request from the University and as found from the letter issued by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 on 28.02.2024, it is found that the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme has been forwarded to Opposite Party No.5 and for its consideration as per rules. 7.1. In view of the same, this Court taking into account the direction contained in letter dtd.28.02.2024 so issued by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 to Opposite Party No.5, while disposing the Writ Petition directs Opposite Party No.5 to take a final decision on the claim of the Petitioner as requested by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 in its letter dtd.28.02.2024 within a period of six (6) weeks from the Page 5 of 6 // 6 // date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is directed to provide copy of this order along with copy of the letter dtd.28.02.2024 before Opposite Party No.5 for compliance. Consequentially, the order of rejection passed by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-8 is hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Subrat (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 01-Mar-2024 10:54:12 Page 6 of 6