Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 Petitioner. *** Rabindra Kumar Mohanty Aged about 32 years Son of Late Netra Uchhaba Mohanty At: Aurobinda Nagar, 2nd Lane P.O.: Buguda, District: Ganjam.… -VERSUS- 1. State of Odisha Represented through Commissioner-cum-Secretary Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department At: Lok Seva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar District: Khordha. 2. Principal Secretary to Govt. General Administration and Public Grievances Department Lok Seva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar District: Khordha. 3. Collector & District Magistrate, Ganjam At/P.O.: Chhatrapur District: Ganjam. W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 1 of 65 4. District Panchayat Officer, Ganjam At/P.O.: Chhatrapur District: Ganjam. 5. Block Development Officer, Buguda At/P.O.: Buguda District: Ganjam. … Opposite Parties. Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner : M/s. Prahallad Kumar Sinha, Amiya Kumar Chhatoi, Advocates For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Shantanu Das, Additional Standing Counsel P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing : 28.11.2024 :: Date of Judgment : 28.11.2024 MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.— J UDGMENT Craving to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by way of filing this writ petition the petitioner sought to quash the Order in Letter dated 03.04.2023 passed by the Collector, Ganjam, opposite party No.3 (Annexure-11), with the following prayer(s): ―In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is ardently prayed that this Hon‘ble Court may W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 2 of 65 graciously be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the Opp. Parties to issue order of appointment in favour of the petitioner in any Group-C post under Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 by quashing the order of rejection dtd.04.03.2023 (sic.03.04.2023) at Annexure-11 declaring the same to be illegal, unconstitutional and discriminatory. issue any other appropriate writ/writs, And order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper in the fitness of the case. And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.‖ Case of the petitioner: 2. The case of the writ petitioner, in brief, is that his father-Netra Uchhaba Mohanty, Peon in the Office of the Block Development Officer, Buguda, died in harness on 21.01.2016 leaving behind his wife (widow), two daughters and two sons. It is asserted that none of the family members of the petitioner has worked under the Government and his father was the sole bread-winner of the family. After his death, financial stringency compelled him to approach the authority for compassionate appointment. Since the mother of the petitioner was suffering from ailments, with the consent of the other family members, the petitioner, son of the deceased employee and is enumerated as one of the “family members” as defined W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 3 of 65 under Rule 2(b)1 of the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (for short the “OCS (RA) Rules, 1990”, for convenience), applied for consideration of his appointment within the period stipulated under Rule 9(6) ibid. vide application dated 29.09.2016. 2.1. Since the opposite parties did not take up his application for consideration, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.1411 of 2021, wherein this Court vide Order dated 28.01.2021 passed the following order: ―This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Looking to the limited request involved herein and as this Court finds the representation of the petitioner involving the matter vide Annexure-6 series is pending consideration, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing the Collector & District Magistrate, Ganjam, Chatrapur-opposite party No.3 to look into the grievance 1 Rule 2(b) defining the term “family members” stands thus: ―In these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires: (b) ‗Family Members‘ shall mean and include the following members in order of preference— (i) (ii) Wife/Husband; Sons or step sons or sons legally adopted through a registered deed; Unmarried daughters and unmarried step daughter; (iii) (iv) Widowed daughter or daughter-in-law residing permanently (v) (vi) with the affected family. Unmarried or widowed sister permanently residing with the affected family; Brother of unmarried Government servant who was wholly dependent on such Government servant at the time of death.‖ W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 4 of 65 of the petitioner vide Annexure-6 series and take decision, as appropriate, taking into consideration the plea taken in the writ petition within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order along with copy of the writ petition by the petitioner. As restrictions are continuing for Covid-19, petitioner may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court‘s Website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed vide Court‘s Notification No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.‖ 2.2. Pursuant to said order of this Court, the Collector, Ganjam vide Letter No.688—XXXV-208/23/GP, dated 03.04.2023 rejected the application for consideration of the appointment of the petitioner under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 contents of which reads as under: ―L.No.688/GP/XXXV-208/23 Dated 03.04.2023 To Sri Rabindra Kumar Mohanty, Son of Late Netra Uchhab Mohanty, At/PO: Arabinda Nagar, 2nd Lane, Buguda, District: Ganjam, PIN – 761 118. Sub: Regarding appointment under Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules 2020. Ref: Letter No.848 dated 22.03.2023 of Block Development Officer, Buguda. Sir, W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 5 of 65 is to of that, Government inform you It the Rehabilitation Assistance Application filed by you earlier for the appointment under RA consideration of Scheme has been examined keeping in view of the Orders of Hon‘ble High Court, Orissa, OCS (RA) Rules 2020, clarification Letter No.6999 dated 02.03.2021 General Administration & Public Grievance Department, & Letter No.4801 dated 04.03.2023 of Government, in Panchayati Raj & Drinking Water Department, Odisha, and evaluated by the Block Development Officer, Buguda by allotting the point in Part-I of the evaluation sheet in Form-D. The total allotted point secured comes to 28 mark in your case which is less than 44 points for eligible under appointment in RA Scheme. in In the above circumstances, you are coming under ineligible category and accordingly the application under RA Scheme does not merit any consideration for appointment under RA Scheme as per prevailing guidelines of Govt. Accordingly, the same is rejected. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Collector, Ganjam. Memo No.689 Dtd. 3.4.2023 Copy forwarded to the Deputy Secretary to Government in Panchayati Raj & Drinking Water Department, Odisha for information & necessary action with reference to Letter No.4801 dated 04.03.2023 of Government in Panchayati Raj & Drinking Water Department. W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 6 of 65 Sd/- Collector, Ganjam.‖ 2.3. Being aggrieved by such refusal by the Collector, Ganjam in considering the grievance of the petitioner, he has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hearing: 3. As the pleadings are completed and the issue involved is for consideration of appointment of the petitioner under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 on concession by counsel for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission. 3.1. Heard Sri Amiya Kumar Chhatoi, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Shantanu Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the opposite parties. Submissions and arguments: 4. Sri Amiya Kumar Chhatoi, learned Advocate, placing the factual details of the matter, urged that the reasons ascribed for consideration of appointment of the petitioner by applying the provisions of the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 (for short “OCS (RA) Rules, 2020)” is not only contrary to avowed purpose for which the scheme of W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 7 of 65 compassionate appointment has been provided for, but also illegal inasmuch as the application for appointment under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 being furnished to the authority concerned, the same should have been considered taking in view the extant provisions in vogue prior to introduction of OCS (RA) Rules, 2020. 4.1. It is submitted by Sri Amiya Kumar Chhatoi, learned counsel that in the aforesaid writ petition, it was averred that as per recommendation of the District Level Screening Committee held on 11.04.2018, nine persons were given appointment under the aforesaid OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. In compliance of the Order dated 28.01.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1411 of 2021, the opposite party No.3-Collector, Ganjam, has rejected the application for consideration of his appointment under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 vide Letter dated 03.04.2023 on flimsy grounds. A terse order has been communicated in the said letter showing that the application has been rejected keeping in view the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020, read with clarification in Letter No.6999 dated 02.03.2021 issued by the General Administration and Public Grievance Department and Letter No.4801 dated 04.03.2023 issued by the Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department. W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 8 of 65 4.2. Sri Amiya Kumar Chhatoi, learned Advocate submitted that since the date of death of the father of the petitioner was on 21.01.2016 and the application was filed by the petitioner within the period stipulated in Rule 9(6) of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990, i.e., on 29.09.2016 for consideration of his appointment, the Collector, Ganjam, opposite party No.3, on an erroneous approach applied the provisions of the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 to the fact of the present case. Therefore, the Collector, Ganjam misdirected himself by observing that “total allotted point secured comes to 28 marks” which is “less than 44 points for eligible” for appointment under the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020; rather claim of the petitioner should have been tested in consonance with the provisions of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. 4.3. Since the delay caused in consideration of the application of the petitioner under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 is attributable to the opposite parties, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy Vrs. State of Odisha and others, (2022) 4 SCR 707 = 2022 (II) OLR (SC) 1, the relevant applicable provisions being the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990, the petitioner is eligible to be considered for appointment. W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 9 of 65 5. Per contra, Sri Shantanu Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties submitted that since the application was considered pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 28.01.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.1411 of 2021, the opposite party No.3-Collector, Ganjam, has taken into consideration the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 which cannot be stated to be illogical or illegal. 5.1. It is submitted that since the petitioner could not qualify for appointment as the norms prescribed under the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020, the application of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. Discussions: 6. There is no dispute that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 21.01.2016. The present petitioner, son of the deceased employee, comes within the definition of the term “family members” as enumerated in Rule 2(b) of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. Nothing is brought on record by the opposite parties to show that there was laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the authority concerned. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioner has applied for consideration of his appointment as per provisions contained in the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990, as on the date said Rules, 1990 were in vogue. W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 10 of 65 6.1. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party Nos.2, 3 and 4 that “after ascertaining the distress condition/certificate of other applicants, their cases have been considered by the District Level Screening Committee by allotting points as required under provisions of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. As the distress condition/certificate was at the enquiry stage, the case of the petitioner under the RA Scheme was not placed before the Committee for consideration on 11.04.2018”. 6.2. From the above it is manifest that there was delay on the part of the Collector, Ganjam to cause enquiry with respect to financial distress of the family of the petitioner and submit report to appropriate quarters as required under Rule 8(1)(b)2 of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. 2 Rule 8 of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 stands thus: ―8. (1) Mode of Appointment.— (a) (b) (c) (d) Application for an appointment shall be made in Form A to these rules to the appointing authority under whom the deceased Government servant last worked, by registered post with A. D. On receipt of the application the appointing authority shall send a requisition to the Collector of the district in which the family ordinarily resides calling for a report as to whether the family is in financial distress. On receipt of a requisition from the appointing authority under Rule 8(b) the Collector of the district concerned shall cause an enquiry into the matter and furnish his report to the appointing authority within one month from the date of receipt of the requisition. The appointing authority, upon receipt of the report, shall consider the same and in case of favourable report, appoint the applicant in a suitable available vacancy under his control. If a Page 11 of 65 W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 6.3. It is pointed out by Sri Amiya Kumar Chhatoi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Block Development Officer, Buguda had forwarded the application of the petitioner for consideration of his appointment under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 to the Ganjam Collectorate vide Letter in Memo No.2367, dated 18.10.2016. Since the same was getting delayed, the petitioner had to (e) vacancy does not exist under his administrative control, the appointing authority may forward the application to the Head of the Department with suitable recommendations. The Head of the Department shall locate vacancies in other offices under his administrative control and direct Head of the Office where there is a vacancy to appoint the applicant. If no vacancy is immediately available the application shall be considered for the immediate subsequent vacancy. In cases arising in offices of Heads of Departments, the Head of the Department shall appoint the candidate in his office or in the offices subordinate thereto. In the case, of the Departments in the Secretariat or the attached Offices the appointing authority, on receipt of application shall refer the case to the concerned Collector for enquiry and report as specified in Clauses (b) & (c) above and on receipt of the report of the Collector under Clause (i) of sub- rule (1) shall follow the procedure as specified hereunder, namely: (i) The concerned Department may appoint the candidate against any post available under its control in the Department not being one in common cadre of the Secretariat. the In case of non-availability of suitable post, Department may direct the Heads of Departments under its control to appoint the candidate against any suitable post under their control. If it is proposed to appoint the candidate against a post in any common cadre of the Secretariat administered by the Home Department, the Administrative Department may suitable recommendations to the Home Department who shall take steps to appoint the candidate against a suitable post in the common cadre. application with forward the (ii) (iii) (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) if the report of the Collector cannot be received within one month from the date of reference, the appointing authority may appoint the applicant subject to the condition that in case of adverse report made by the Collector, his services will be terminated without assigning any reason thereof.‖ W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 12 of 65 approach this Court in W.P.(C) No.1411 of 2021,
Decision
which was disposed of on 28.01.2021. Even then when there was non-compliance of direction of this Court, with constraint contempt petition bearing CONTC No.7155 of 2021 was filed, which was dropped on 13.04.2023, as by then the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected. Said facts remained undisputed by learned Additional Standing Counsel. In such view of the matter, it is found that the appropriate authority had not considered the application for appointment under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 with due dispatch in the year 2016, as soon as the same was stated to have been forwarded by the Block Development Officer. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there was a delay on the part of the opposite party No.3 in considering the representation of the petitioner. Notwithstanding such delayed approach made by the opposite parties, the reasons for denial of giving appointment have been assigned while considering the case of the petitioner were in terms of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020. 6.4. It is settled that appointment under the scheme of rehabilitation is intended to save a family from distress caused on the death of the earning member of the family. At this juncture it is fruitful to take note of Page 13 of 65 W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 provisions of Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990, which stood thus: ―3. Applicability.— The assistance shall be applicable to a member of the family of the Government servant who dies while in service. 4. Objective of the scheme.— The rehabilitation assistance is conceived as a compassionate measure of saving the family of a Government servant immediate distress from when the Government servant suddenly dies while in service. The concept is based on the premises that in case of sudden death his family would not face starvation. The scheme has a direct relationship with the economic condition of the family of the Government servant. Appointment of the family member of the Government servant under these rules shall be subject to the provisions contained in Rule 93 and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.‖ 3 Rule 9 of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990, stood thus: ―9. (1) Condition of service.— Appointment under these rules can be made only against the posts required to be filled up by direct recruitment and not against promotional posts. Subject to the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) the applicant for appointment to a particular post, under the rehabilitation assistance scheme, must have the requisite qualifications as prescribed in the relevant recruitment Rules (1) Resolutions or Instructions regulating the recruitment to the said post. (2) (3) Where a widow of the deceased Government servant is appointed on compassionate ground against a Group D post, she is not required to satisfy the educational qualification prescribed for the said post, provided the duties attached to the post can be satisfactorily performed without having the requisite educational qualification. W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 14 of 65 6.5. Such being the avowed purport of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990, delay on the part of the authority concerned is deprecated. The authority-opposite party No.3 has maintained a supine stance in addressing the pressing issues at hand and his failure to take decisive action by feeling sense of urgency reflects a deeply lackadaisical attitude, which compromises the well- being of the family of the petitioner. 7. This Court examines whether said OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 is applicable to the facts of the present case. 7.1. It may be worthwhile to refer to State of West Bengal Vrs. Debabrata Tiwari, (2023) 2 SCR 611, wherein it has been observed as follows: ―7.1. It may be apposite to refer to the following decisions of this Court, on the rationale behind a policy or scheme for compassionate appointment and to guide compassionate determination of appointment. the considerations that ought claims for (4) (5) (6) (7) Family of a Government servant who dies while on re-employment or extension of service, shall not be eligible for any benefit under these rules. *** Application for appointment under these rules shall be considered if it is received within one year from the date of death of the Government servant. If at the time of death of the Government servant, there is ward who is minor and who alone is available in the family of the deceased Government servant for employment, he/she shall apply for job under these rules on attaining the age of eighteen years and in no case beyond three years from the date of attaining the age of eighteen years.‖ W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 15 of 65 i. ii. In Sushma Gosain Vrs. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468, this Court observed that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. That the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardship caused due to the death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. that In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vrs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, this Court the object of granting observed compassionate employment is to enable the family of a deceased government employee to tide over the sudden crisis by providing gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who is eligible for such employment. That mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood; the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family, provided a scheme or rules provide for the same. This Court further clarified in the said case that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time after the death of a government servant. That that, but for W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 16 of 65 the object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, cannot be compassionate claimed and of considerable amount of time and after the crisis is overcome. employment offered after lapse iii. concerned authority. In Haryana State Electricity Board Vrs. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85, (―Hakim Singh‖) this Court placed much emphasis on the need for immediacy in the manner in which claims for compassionate appointment are made by the dependants and decided by the This Court cautioned that it should not be forgotten that the object of compassionate appointment is to give succour to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis that has befallen the dependants on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member. Therefore, this Court held that it would not be justified in directing appointment for the claimants therein on compassionate grounds, fourteen years after the death of the government employee. That such a direction would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession. iv. This Court in State of Haryana Vrs. Ankur Gupta, AIR 2003 SC 3797 held that in order for a claim for compassionate appointment to be considered reasonable and permissible, it must be shown that a sudden crisis occurred Page 17 of 65 W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 in the family of the deceased as a result of death of an employee who had served the State and died while in service. It was further observed that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right and cannot be made available to all types of posts irrespective of the the nature of service rendered by deceased employee. There is a consistent line of authority of this Court on the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is given only for meeting the immediate unexpected hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner vide Jagdish Prasad Vrs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301. When an appointment is made on compassionate grounds, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion, vide I.G. (Karmik) Vrs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162. In the same vein is the decision of this Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vrs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384, wherein it on that was compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. appointment declared In State of Jammu and Kashmir Vrs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, AIR 2006 SC 2743, the facts before this Court were that the government Page 18 of 65 v. vi. W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 filed employee (father of the applicant therein) died in March, 1987. The application was made by the applicant after four and half years in September, 1991 which was rejected in March, 1996. The writ petition in June, 1999 which was was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in July, 2000. When the Division Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years had passed from the date of death of the father of the applicant. This Court remarked that the said facts were relevant and material as they would demonstrate that the family survived in spite of death of the employee. Therefore, this Court held that granting compassionate appointment after a lapse of a considerable amount of time after the death of the government employee, would not be in furtherance of the object of a scheme for compassionate appointment. (2019) 3 SCC 653, In State of Himachal Pradesh Vrs. Shashi Kumar, this Court speaking through Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was) observed that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. That the basis of the policy is that it recognizes that a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death vii. W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 19 of 65 of the employee while in service. That it is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. The pertinent observations of this Court have been extracted as under: ‗41. Insofar as to the individual application facts the Respondent are pertaining concerned, it has emerged from the record that the Writ Petition before the High Court was instituted on 11 May 2015. for The appointment was compassionate submitted on 8 May 2007. On 15 January 2008 the Additional Secretary had required that the amount realized by way of pension be included in the income statement of the family. The Respondent waited thereafter for a period in excess of seven years to move a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), this Court has emphasized that the basis of a scheme of compassionate appointment the need of providing immediate assistance to the family of the deceased employee. This sense of immediacy is evidently lost by the delay on the part of the dependant in seeking compassionate appointment.‘ lies in 7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge: W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 20 of 65 i. ii. iii. a for provision That compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the the general nature of an exception provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. to Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after over. That is crisis the should be compassionate appointment provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. iv. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 21 of 65 family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if the age, any, received by the its dependency and marital status of members, together with the income from any other source. family, 7.3. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a bread winner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act with a in matters concerning sense of compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to immediacy W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 22 of 65 whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration. 7.4. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependants of the deceased employee being compassionate grounds. The employed on financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the time of the death of the deceased, is the primary consideration that ought to guide the authorities‘ decision in the matter.‖ 7.2. In the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to observe as follows: ―Thus, from the aforesaid, it can be seen that there was no fault and/or delay and/or negligence on the part of the appellant at all. He was fulfilling all the conditions for appointment on compassionate grounds under the 1990 Rules. For no reason, his application was kept pending and/or no order was passed on one ground or the other. Therefore, when there was no fault and/or delay on the part of the appellant and all throughout the there was a delay department/authorities, the appellant should not be made to suffer. Not appointing the appellant under the 1990 Rules would be giving a premium to the delay and/or inaction on the part of the department/ authorities. There was an absolute callousness on the part of the department/authorities. The facts are in conspicuous and manifest the grave delay part the on of W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 23 of 65 is entertaining the application submitted by the appellant in seeking employment which indisputably attributable to the department/authorities. In fact, the appellant has been deprived of seeking compassionate appointment, which he was otherwise entitled to under the 1990 Rules. The appellant has become a victim of the delay and/or the inaction on department/authorities which may be deliberate or for reasons best known to the authorities concerned. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the larger question open and aside, as observed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the appellant herein shall not be denied appointment under the 1990 Rules.‖ the part of 7.3. In the case of State of West Bengal Vrs. Debabrata Tiwari, (2023) 2 SCR 611, laying emphasis on the observations made in Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed thus: ―11. It may be apposite at this juncture to refer to the following observations of this Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy Vrs. State of Orissa, AIR 2022 SC 2836, as to the manner in which the authorities must consider and decide applications for appointment on compassionate grounds: ‗9. Before parting with the present order, we are constrained to observe that considering the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, i.e., a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 24 of 65 decide service and the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications. applications such is in for found that for several appointment We are constrained to direct as above as we cases, have on applications compassionate grounds are not attended in time and are kept pending for years together. As a result, the applicants in several cases have to approach the concerned High Courts the seeking a writ of Mandamus consideration of their applications. Even after such a direction issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge the order of rejection before the High Court which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family of the employee who died in harness in the in financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applications made compassionate appointment are rejected. After several years or are not considered at all as in the instant case. lurch and for W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 25 of 65 If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of fair, time. The consideration must be reasonable relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then only the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved.‘ based and on In the said case, the claim of the appellant- applicant therein for compassionate appointment was directed by this Court to be considered by the competent authority. This Court noted that in the said case, there was no lapse on the part of the appellant-applicant therein in diligently pursuing the matter. The delay the application of the appellant therein was held to be solely attributable to the authorities of the State, and no part of it was occasioned by the appellant- in considering W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 Page 26 of 65 applicant. Further, in the said case, the appellant- applicant was prejudiced not only because of the prolonged delay in considering his application but also by the fact that in the interim, the policy of the State governing compassionate appointment had changed to his detriment. Therefore, the facts of the said case were distinct from the facts involved herein. In the present case, the conduct of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners cannot be said to be blameless in that they did not pursue their matter with sufficient diligence. However, the observations made in the said case as to the manner in which applications for compassionate appointment are to be considered and disposed of are relevant to the present case.‖ 7.4. In course of argument, Sri Amiya Kumar Chhatoi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the decisions of this Court in the cases of Suchitra Bal Vrs. State of Odisha, in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 & batch, disposed of on 27.06.2023 and State of Odisha and others Vrs. Bindusagar Samantaray, in W.A. No.810 of 2021, disposed of on 25.09.2023. This Court in the said batch of cases has taken pragmatic view directing the State Government to consider the compassionate appointment under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. 7.5. In the present context, it may be worthwhile to quote from State of Odisha Vrs. Bindusagar Samantaray, W.A. No.810 of 2021, &c., wherein the following Page 27 of 65 W.P.(C) No.18923 of 2023 observations are made by a Division Bench of this Court in the intra-Court appeal vide Judgment dated 25.09.2023: ―7. At this juncture, this Court would like to add that in Malaya Nanda Sethy Vrs. State of Odisha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684, the Hon‘ble apex Court in no uncertain terms has observed that when such delay is clearly attributable to the State or the State instrumentalities, that cannot be used against the person who is seeking rehabilitation assistance from the State. In a recent judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, the aspects of developing law including difference of opinion in certain points have been dealt with. In the said case being W.P.(C) No. 2081 of 2021 [Suchitra Bal Vrs. State of Odisha & others] and batch, decided on 27.06.2023 it has been observed as follows: