The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.23683 and 23682 of 2021 In W.P.(C) No.23683 of 2021 Pradip Kumar Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. Karunakar Rath, Adv. -versus- Principal Secretary to Govt., School and Mass Education Deptt. And Ors.. …. Opposite Parties Mr. B. Mohanty, SC (for S & ME Deptt.) In W.P.(C) No.23682 of 2021 Biswajit Parida …. Petitioner Mr. Karunakar Rath, Adv. -versus- Principal Secretary to Govt., School and Mass Education Deptt. And Ors.. …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. B. Mohanty, SC (for S & ME Deptt.) MR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI CORAM:
Decision
Order No. 6. ORDER 31.05.2022 1. Both the matters are taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties-State. Page 1 of 8 // 2 // 3. The petitioners have filed these applications challenging the order dated 23.03.2021 of the District Education Officer, Kendrupara- Opp. Party No.4 in rejecting their representations for compassionate appointment under the prevailing Rule when the petitioners had submitted thier application pursuant to the order of the High Court for considering their case in the light of the judgment reported in 2015 (11) ILR-CUT-569. The petitioners have also challenged the action of the Opp. Parties in not considering their case for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme as per the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule1990 although they had submitted their applications along with all necessary documents before the appropriate authority for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme as per Rule 1990 due to the harness of their late fathers. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the substratum of the matter presented before this Court remain in W.P.(C) No.23682 of 2021 that the petitioner's father Late Bichitra Kumar Parida while working as an Asst. Teacher in Bandhapada Primary School, Bandhapada under BEO, Mahakalpada he expired on 17.10.2012. So after the death of the father of the petitioner, the conditions of the family became very much precarious. So, the petitioner Page 2 of 8 // 3 // choose to file an application before the competent authority i.e. the then D.I. of Schools, Kendrapara now Block Education Officer, Mahakalpada for a job under the Rule 1990 of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme after obtaining death certificate and legal heir certificate. The other legal heirs like mother and brother gave their no objection certificate due to medically unfit. The petitioner submitted his application on 12.08.2015 as per the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule 1990. Till now the petitioner has not been provided the job so far either as per the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule 1990 or Amendment Rule 2016 and he has been waiting since his application and the family members are still in distress conditions. 5. So far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23683 of 2021 is concerned, the petitioner's father Late Bipin Bihari Sahoo while working as an Asst. Teacher in Lalita Kumari Bidyapitha, Maliancha, he expired on 16.12.2014. After the death of the father of the petitioner, the financial conditions of the family became very much precarious. So, the petitioner choose to file an application before the competent authority i.e. the then D.I. of Schools, Kendrapara now Block Education Officer, Mahakalpada for a job under the Rule 1990 of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme after obtaining Page 3 of 8 // 4 // death certificate and legal heir certificate. The other legal heirs like mother and brother consented to give their no objection certificate due to medical reasons. The petitioner submitted the application on 18.02.2015 as per the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule 1990. Till now the petitioner has not been provided the job, either under the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule 1990 or Amendment Rule 2016. He has been waiting the decision in his application since his family members are still in financially distress condition. Therefore, both the petitioners filed the aforesaid Writ Petitions having not found any efficacious remedies. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Opp. Party No.2 did not provide the compassionate appointment to the petitioners in time and after the Amendment Rule 2016 came into force the petitioners were asked to submit a fresh application along with all documents at the District Education Officer level although the select list was prepared he was not given any appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme which is purely due to oblique motive. It is not out of place to mention here that the petitioners are not covered under the Amendment Rules, 2020 as they have submitted their Page 4 of 8 // 5 // applications as per the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule 1990. So, their cases should have been considered in a separate category i.e. pursuant to the Rules, 1990. The Opp. Parties have delayed in not considering their cases and in this way 7 years have been elapsed. They have been waiting and on the other hand, the Opp. Parties have played mockery of the Scheme by adopting a pick and choose policy. 7. It is stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. 8. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. This view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sushma Gosain And Ors. vs Union Of India1 and Smt. Phoolwati vs Union Of India &Ors.2 Seven years of delay in the present case