The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.25602 of 2019 Bimal Bhengra Petitioner …. Mr.Jitendra Kumar Digal, Advocate State of Odisha and others …. -versus- Opposite Parties Mr.P.C.Das,A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 01.12.2023 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer : “ It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the case and call for the records and after hearing both the parties pass the following reliefs: i) ii) To quash the rejection order dated 01.06.2019 under Annexure-8. To direct the Opposite Parties to appoint the Petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. iii) To pass such other order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper.” Page 1 of 2 // 2 // 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to quash the rejection order dated 01.06.2019 under
Decision
Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition. Further, a direction to the Opposite Parties to appoint the Petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. 5. The factual background leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition is that the father of the present Petitioner while working as Choukidar in the Office of Opposite Party No.3-Project Director, Watersheds-cum-Deputy Director, Soil Conservation, Sundargarh died in harness on 11.09.2013 leaving behind his wife, two sons and three daughters as the surviving legal heirs. Since the family of the deceased Government employee was in a distress condition, the present Petitioner, who is the younger son of the deceased Government employee applied for appointment on compassionate ground with the consent of the other legal heirs on 01.11.2013. Such application of the Petitioner was forwarded by the Collector on 21.11.2014 under Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition. Since the mother of the present Petitioner was alive, the Opposite Parties called for a report from the Medical Board with regard to the health condition of the mother of the Petitioner. Accordingly, pursuant to letter of the CDMO, Sundrgarh dated 02.04.2015 the mother of the Petitioner appeared before the Medical Board on 02.04.2015 and the Medical Board declared the mother of the Petitioner as unfit for any Government job vide its report dated 02.04.2015 under Annexure-4. It further appears that the Petitioner has also filed Affidavit of other legal heirs expressing their no objection to the appointment of the Petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. In the Writ Petition, it has been stated that the discrepancies pointed out by the Page 2 of 6 // 3 // office of Opposite Party No.3 have been complied with in the meantime. Accordingly, on 18.07.2018 the Opposite Party No.3 resubmitted the application of the Petitioner in duplicate before the Opposite Party No.2 for appointment of the Petitioner under R.A. Scheme. While this was so, finally vide letter dated 01.06.2019 the Opposite Parties have rejected the application of the Petitioner solely on the ground that the mother of the Petitioner was alive and in view of the order of preference as given in Rule 2(b) of OCS(RA) Rule, 1990, the case of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground could not have been considered in preference over the mother of the Petitioner or wife of the deceased Government employee. Accordingly, the application of the Petitioner has been rejected on the said ground. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that the Opposite Parties while rejecting his application for appointment on compassionate ground has committed illegality by coming to a conclusion that since the mother of the Petitioner and wife of the deceased Government employee was alive, the application of the Petitioner should have been considered by them. Further, the learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Jyotiranjan Pradhan –v.-State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) 32836 of 2020 along with W.P.(C) No.32837 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.24762 of 2021 disposed of on 31.10.2023, submitted before this Court that the ground on which the application of the Petitioner has been rejected has already been analyzed and answered by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. This Court while delivering the common judgment in the aforesaid case has also referred the judgment in Ajit Kumar Barik v.State of Orissa and Page 3 of 6 // 4 // others reported in 2018(II) OLR-10 (BD). In both the aforesaid judgments this Court while considering the ground of rejection i.e. while the mother is alive, the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is not maintainable in view of the provision contained in Rule 2(b) has come to a conclusion that the availability of the mother of the applicant or the wife of the deceased Government employee do not stand as a bar to consider the case of the Petitioner if such applicant complied with other requirements of the Rules. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, on careful consideration of their submissions as well as upon careful examination of the pleadings of the respective parties, this Court is of the view that the sole question which falls for consideration in the present Writ Petition is that as to whether the case of the Petitioner is required to be considered by the Opposite Parties while the mother of the Petitioner, who is the wife of the ex-Government employee is alive and as to whether the order of preference which has been indicated in Rule 2(b) is mandatory and the same will stand on the way of the Petitioner for consideration of the case of the Petitioner ? The cases which have been referred to by the learned counsel for the Petitioner Jyotiranjan Pradhan and Ajit Kumar Barik’s case, identical scenario arose and falls for consideration, this Court after careful examination of the factual background as well as upon analysis of the legal position has come to a categorical conclusion that even after the mother is alive she is incompetent to discharge Government duty, then such fact shall not stand on the way of the applicant for getting appointment on compassionate ground. So far the present case is concerned, the mother of the Petitioner was Page 4 of 6 // 5 // directed to appear before the Medical Board. The duly constituted Medical Board after examination of the mother of the Petitioner has granted certificate that she is unfit to discharge the Government duty. Considering such certificate granted by the Medical Board is adequate to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground if other requirement i.e. NOC by other legal heirs are available before the authority for consideration. As it appears from the record that other legal heirs have given their consent supported by an affidavit in support of the Petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no other legal impediment in considering the case of the Petitioner and that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Jyotiranjan Pradhan’s case (supra). 8. Accordingly, in view of the factual as well as legal analysis made herein above, this Court deems it proper to quash the rejection order dated 01.06.2019 under Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded to Opposite Party No.2 to consider the matter afresh keeping in view the judgment of this Court in Jyotiranjan Pradhan as well as Ajit Kumar Barik’s case within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioner. The Opposite Parties are further directed to consider the case of the Petitioner by taking into consideration the judgment in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 2022(II) as well as the judgments of this Court in Suchitra Bal v. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 & batch decided on 27.06.2023 and State of Odisha and others Page 5 of 6 // 6 // vs. Bindu Sagar Samantaray in W.A.No.810 of 2021 cases under the OCS(RA) Rule, 1990. In the event it is found that there is no other impediment the Opposite Parties shall do well to give appointment to the Petitioner on compassionate ground strictly in accordance with Rules. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. RKS (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Dec-2023 11:37:31 Page 6 of 6