Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 22881 of 2018 Along with W.P.(C) Nos.22886 and 22996 of 2018 (In the matters of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). …. Petitioner(s) Ashok Kumar Nayak (In W.P.(C) No.22881 of 2018) Arunachala Padhy (In W.P.(C) No.22886 of 2018) Nilanchal Subudhi (In W.P.(C) No.22996 of 2018) Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Odisha & Others …. Opposite Party (s) -versus- Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shakti Dutta Tripathy, Adv. (in W.P.(C) Nos.22881 and 22886 of 2018) Mr. Baidhar Sahoo, Adv. (in W.P.(C) No.22996 of 2018) For Opposite Party (s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Debendra Ku. Mahalik, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:- 22.07.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT:- 24.09.2024 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in all the above- mentioned Writ Petitions, the same were heard together and are being Page 1 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05 disposed of by this common judgment. However, this Court felt it apposite to deal the W.P.(C) No.22881 of 2018 as the leading case for proper adjudication of all these cases 2. In W.P.(C) No.22881 of 2018, the petitioner, challenged the Bank’s decision and sought appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, contending that the Bank’s actions were unlawful and in violation of Rule-8 of the Human Resource (HR) Policy governing Central Co-operative Banks in Odisha. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The brief facts of the case as presented by the Petitioner are as follows: (i) The petitioner is the legal heir of Late Bipra Charan Nayak, who worked as a Junior Supervisor in the Aska Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. and passed away on 18.09.2005. The petitioner applied for an appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance (RA) Scheme after his father’s death. (ii) The petitioner’s application was initially forwarded to the Aska C.C. Bank by the Opposite Party No. 1 (Registrar of Co-operative Societies) on 15.01.2007. The petitioner submitted relevant documents, and the Bank forwarded the application to the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Ganjam, for further processing. (iii) The petitioner did not receive any further communication or action from the Collector or the Bank regarding his application. In 2016, the petitioner, along with other similarly situated individuals, threatened to stage a “Dharana” (sit-in protest), prompting the Bank to issue letters in Page 2 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05 October and November 2016, requesting then to refrain from the protest. (iv) The Bank requested the petitioner to submit a prescribed application form and other documents, which the petitioner complied with on 17.06.2017. In the Board of Management meeting held on 18.01.2018, the Bank resolved to appoint five other legal heirs of deceased employees but did not appoint the petitioner. (v) Aggrieved by the action of the bank, the petitioner filed the writ petition on 29.12.2018 challenging the Bank’s decision and seeking appointment under the RA Scheme/ alleging that the Bank’s action was illegal and contrary to Rule-8 of the Human Resource (HR) Policy for Central Co- operative Banks of Odisha. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 4. (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The petitioner submitted that his application under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme was ignored in favour of legal heirs whose deaths occurred after his father’s/ which is contrary to the rules governing such appointments. (ii) He further submitted that the actions of Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 are illegal and in violation of Rule-8 of the Human Resource Policy, which prioritizes earlier death cases. Page 3 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05 (iii) The petitioner contended that the actions of Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 are illegal and in violated the provisions of law and relevant judgments of this Court. (iv) He further contended that the High Court of Orissa, in the case of Pabitra Mohan Palei v. Registrar Co-operative Societies, Orissa1, ruled in favour of applicants in similar cases under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, reinforcing the petitioner’s eligibility for appointment. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 5. (i) (ii) The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: It was submitted that the petitioner’s claim is time-barred, as his father passed away in 2005, and the petition was filed in 2018, over 13 years later. It was further submitted that the petitioner initially applied for appointment under the RA Scheme but failed to follow up on his application. The Bank forwarded the petitioner’s case to the Collector- cum-District Magistrate, Ganjam, in 2010, but no further action was taken due to a lack of communication from the Collector or the petitioner. (iii) It is contended that the bank resolved to appoint five legal heirs of deceased employees in its Board of Management meeting on 18.01.2018, but the petitioner’s claim was not considered/ as the application process was incomplete or not pursued. 1 2014(1) OLR 777. Page 4 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05 (iv) It is further contended that appointment under the RA Scheme is not a matter of right and is subject to necessity, qualification, and the availability of vacancies as per Rule-8 of the HR Policy for Central Co- operative Banks. The Rule also allows the Bank to provide compensation in lieu of an appointment. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 6. 7. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and meticulously examined the documents presented before this Court. At the very outset, it is apparent that the father of the petitioner passed away in 2005, while the present writ petition has only been filed in the year 2018. It is a well-established principle of law that the grant of compassionate appointment is neither an entitlement nor a recognized method of regular employment. Rather, it is a discretionary measure extended as an act of compassion to support the bereaved family of a deceased employee who passed away during service. Similar issue has been confronted by the Apex Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sajad Ahmed Mir2, wherein the Court addressed a scenario where the father of the applicant, a government employee, had passed away in March, 1996. The writ petition seeking compassionate appointment was filed in June, 1999, and subsequently dismissed by the learned Single Judge in July, 2000. By the time the Division Bench took up the matter, more than fifteen years had elapsed since the death of the employee. The Supreme Court noted that such a considerable passage of time was a material factor, as it demonstrated 2 AIR 2006 SC 2743. Page 5 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05 that the family had managed to sustain itself despite the death of the employee. Therefore, the Court concluded that granting compassionate appointment after such a significant delay would undermine the very purpose of the compassionate appointment scheme, which is intended to provide immediate financial relief to the bereaved family. 9. The doctrine of laches, which refers to undue delay or negligence by an individual in seeking equitable relief from a court, thereby disqualifying them from such discretionary remedy, was articulated with clarity in the case of Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong3 In this case, the Court elaborated on the principle that a party’s dilatory conduct in approaching a court of equity can bar their entitlement to relief: “Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation, in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute or limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of Justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy.” 3 (1874) 3 PC 221. Page 6 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05 10. Applying the aforementioned judicial precedents to the present case, this Court observes that the Petitioner, despite having the option to seek legal recourse before this Court, chose not to avail the same. Instead, the Petitioner engaged in peripheral actions, such as staging a dharna, which did little to advance his cause. 11. The urgency that typically underscores matters of compassionate appointment has long been extinguished in the present case, a lapse attributable to both the authorities and the petitioner. In order to entertain a claim now originating in 2006, almost two decades later in 2024, would serve no meaningful purpose. It is evident that the petitioners have managed to sustain themselves despite lack of appointment on compassionate grounds. Consequently, this case does not merit the Court’s intervention to direct that the petitioners’ claims for compassionate appointment be reconsidered or entertained. 12. Furthermore, even if a court or tribunal directs the consideration of representations pertaining to an outdated or dormant claim, such directives do not give rise to a fresh cause of action. A cause of action that has faded into oblivion cannot be resurrected, much like a shadow that disappears with the setting sun. Likewise, the mere submission of a representation to the competent authority does not suspend or interrupt the running of time. 13. However, it is incumbent upon this Court to censure the authorities for the manner in which they have addressed the applications for compassionate appointments, affecting hundreds of dependents. Undue Page 7 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05 delay on the part of the State authorities in adjudicating such claims undeniably undermines the fundamental purpose of the compassionate appointment scheme. Government officials are expected to act with the highest degree of diligence and promptness in resolving these claims, ensuring that the benevolent intent underlying the scheme is effectuated without unnecessary hindrance or delay.
Decision
In view of the foregoing, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier, in any, of the Writ Petitions stands 14. 15. vacated. (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th Sept. 2024/ Page 8 of 8