The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 27135 of 2021 Bholanath Parida ..... Petitioner Mr. K.C.R. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- The D.G., CRPF, New Delhi & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. S. Samantaray, CGC THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 14.10.2025 Order No. 14 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. K.C. Rajgurumohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI along with Mr. S. Samantaray, learned CGC appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the impugned communication issued on 05.06.2021 under Annexure-10 by Opp. Party No. 4. Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of compassionate appointment was rejected vide the impugned communication. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that on the death of his father on 01.08.2009, his elder brother made the application to get the benefit of compassionate appointment. However, since the elder brother of the Petitioner on being asked to appear in the required test, never appeared and absconded, his claim was rejected vide letter dtd.09.04.2018 under Annexure-11. Page 1 of 5. 4.1. It is contended that since the elder brother of the Petitioner who had made the application to get the benefit, never appeared to take the test and he absconded, Petitioner’s mother made an application before Opp. Party No. 4 on 03.01.2019 vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit inter alia making a request to consider the application to be submitted by the present Petitioner to get the benefit of compassionate appointment, being the younger son of the deceased employee. 4.2. It is contended that in consideration of the request made by the wife of the deceased employee on 03.01.2019 vide Annexure-A, vide letter dtd.23.04.2019 under Annexure-2, Opp. Party No. 4 permitted the present Petitioner to make the application to get the benefit of compassionate appointment. 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in terms of such permission granted by Opp. Party No. 4 vide his letter dtd.23.04.2019 under Annexure-2, Petitioner though made an application to get the benefit and it was also processed, but ultimately vide the impugned letter dtd.05.06.2021 under Annexure-10, his claim was rejected on the ground that the application is time barred and there is no vacancy within the permissible 5% of the regular vacancy to be filled up from amongst eligible candidates to get the benefit of compassionate appointment. 4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner made the application after rejection of the candidature of his elder brother, basing on the permission grated by Opp. Party No. 4 vide his letter dtd.23.04.2019 and it was not only entertained but also processed all through, the ground on which the claim has been rejected vide the impugned letter dtd.05.06.2021 under Annexure-10 is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. Page 2 of 5. 5. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI along with Mr. S. Samantaray, learned CGC appearing for the Opp. Parties on the other hand contended that since on the death of the deceased employee on 01.08.2009, his elder son made the application, which was rejected vide letter dtd.09.04.2018 under Annexure-11, Petitioner being the 2nd son of the deceased employee, is not eligible ad entitled to get the benefit by making the application in that regard. It is also contended that since while considering the claim of the Petitioner, his claim does not fall within the available 5% of regular vacancy, his claim has been rejected. It is also contended that the application to get the benefit since was made around 9 years of the death of the employee, the same is time barred. It is accordingly contended that there is no illegality or irregularity with such rejection. 6. To the submission made by the learned DSGI, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner made further submission relying on the communication issued under Annexure-6 on 18th March, 2020. It is contended that when Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit does not come within the purview of 5% of the regular vacancy, Petitioner vide the said communication under Annexure-6 was requested to make a fresh application for appointment to any one of the posts mentioned in the said letter where vacancies are available. 6.1. Even though Petitioner complied the said request by making the application vide Annexure-7, but his claim was rejected ultimately vide the impugned communication dtd.05.06.2021on the ground that it is a time barred application and his claim is not coming within the permissible 5% of the regular vacancy. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that on the death Page 3 of 5. of the Petitioner’s father while in service on 01.08.2009, the elder brother of the Petitioner made his application to get the benefit of appointment in the year 2011. As found, claim of the elder brother of the Petitioner Sri Sanjay Kumar Parida was rejected vide communication dtd.09.04.2018 under Annexure-11 on the ground that he did not participate in the required test in spite of being noticed. 7.1. As found, subsequent to such rejection of the claim of his elder brother, Petitioner’s mother when made a prayer to consider the claim of the present Petitioner vide letter dtd.03.01.2019 under Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, while accepting such prayer vide letter dtd.23.04.2019 under Annexure-2, Petitioner was permitted to make the application to get the benefit. 7.2. Basing on such permission granted by Opp. Party No. 4 under Annexure-2, Petitioner not only made the application but also his claim was considered and vide letter dtd.18.03.2020 under Annexure- 6, Petitioner was requested to make a fresh application for his appointment to any other post as his claim to get the benefit against the post applied for does not come within the purview of permissible 5% of the regular vacancy. 7.3. As found, in terms of the direction issued under Annexure-6, Petitioner made a fresh application under Annexure-7 and with a request to provide him appointment to any other post so available and enclosed to letter dtd.18.03.2020 under Annexure-6. 7.4. However, as found on the ground that Petitioner’s claim is time barred and his claim is not coming within the purview of permissible 5% of regular vacancy, Petitioner’s claim was rejected. Page 4 of 5. 7.5. This Court taking into account the permission granted to the Petitioner to make the application vide letter dtd.23.04.2019 under Annexure-2 and the direction issued in letter dtd.18.03.2020 under Annexure-6, is of the view that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim was rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, while quashing the impugned communication dtd.05.06.2021 under Annexure-10, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 4 to provide appointment to the Petitioner as against any post basing on the letter issued under Annexure-6 and the application made by the Petitioner under Annexure-7 within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-Oct-2025 13:21:02 Page 5 of 5.