The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.36781 of 2020 Mani Kumari Behera …. -versus- Petitioner Mr. J. Dash, Advocate Commissioner-cum-Secy., S & M.E. Deptt., Khurda & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 25.11.2024 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 23.10.2024, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State produced copy of the office Letter No.15542 dtd.06.10.2018 as well as letter dtd.14.02.2019 in Court today. The same be kept in record. 3. Copy of the letter dtd.06.10.2018 and 14.02.2019
Legal Reasoning
are also provided to the learned counsel for the Petitioner in Court today. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 5. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order dtd.10.01.2020 so passed by Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-13. Vide the said // 2 // order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of Rehabilitation Appointment has been rejected. 6. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner made the application to get the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on 14.08.2014 under Annexure-5. After receipt of the district certificate, Petitioner vide letter dtd. 19.08.2017 under Annexure-7 was requested to attend the office of Opposite Party No.4 with various documents in original for verification in connection to her eligibility to get the benefit of appointment and the period from 06.09.2017 to 11.09.2017 was fixed for such verification of documents. 6.1. It is contended that in terms of the request made under Annexure-7, Petitioner during the relevant time period produced all the original documents vide Annexure-8 with due acknowledgement dtd.08.09.2017. 6.2. It is contended that thereafter vide letter dtd.26.05.2018 under Annexure-9 when the Petitioner was again requested to submit two documents, Petitioner made a representation under Annexure-10 with a request to consider her claim as in spite of submission of all the documents as requested in Annexure-7, her name has been indicated in the list of candidates who have not appeared for verification of the documents. Page 2 of 6 // 3 // 6.3. It is contended that after receipt of Annexure-10, when no further communication was made, Petitioner again moved Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-12 on 22.10.2019. 6.4. It is contended that as the claim of the Petitioner was not considered with due communication of any order, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.24465 of 2019. This Court vide order dtd.11.12.2019 directed Opposite Party No.4 to take a decision on the representation available under Annexure-12 to the present Writ Petition. 6.5. It is contended that on the ground that the Petitioner has not submitted the documents in terms of the Letter No.15542 dtd.06.10.2018, claim of the Petitioner was rejected. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that letter dtd.06.10.2018 was never issued to the Petitioner nor it has been received by her. It is accordingly contended that since letter dtd.06.10.2018 was never communicated to the Petitioner, she had no occasion to comply the request made in that letter. 6.6. It is accordingly contended that rejection of the Petitioner’s claim on the ground of non-compliance on the Page 3 of 6 // 4 // request made in letter dtd.06.10.2018 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. Even though notice of the writ petition has been issued since 25.01.2021, but no counter affidavit has been filed. However, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 23.10.2024 and after going through the letters issued by the D.E.O., on 06.10.2018 as well as 14.02.2019, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State contended that since the request made by the D.E.O., vide letter dtd.06.10.2018 and 14.02.2019 was never complied with by the Petitioner, her claim has been rightly rejected. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that on receipt of the application submitted by the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme under Annexure-5. Petitioner vide letter dtd.19.08.2017 under Annexure-7 was requested to attend the office of Opposite Party No.4 along with her original documents for verification. As found from Annexure-8, Petitioner appeared and produced the original certificate on 08.09.2017 under Annexure-8. Thereafter when another letter was issued on 26.05.2018 under Annexure-9 with a request to submit two documents, Petitioner made a representation before Opposite Party No.4 on 11.03.2019 inter alia Page 4 of 6 // 5 // contending that in spite of her appearance for verification of the documents on 08.09.2017, her name has been wrongly reflected in the list of candidates who have not appeared for verification of the documents. 8.1. As no action was taken in considering the grievance of the Petitioner so made under Annexure-10, she again made a representation before Opposite Party No.4 by Registered Posit with A.D., on 31.10.2019 under Annexure-12. On the face of the request made under Annexures-10 and 12 when Opposite Party No.4 did not intimate anything to the Petitioner, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.24465 of 2019. This Court vide order dtd.11.12.2019 directed Opposite Party No.4 to consider her representation so made under Annexure-12. 8.2. As found relying on the letter issued on 06.10.2018 by Opposite Party No.4 and non-compliance of the request by the Petitioner, her claim was rejected. 8.3. Since it is the case of the Petitioner that letter dtd.06.10.2018 was never issued, which has not been controverted by the State Counsel and no document has been filed showing service of letter dtd.06.10.2018 on the Petitioner, rejection of the Petitioner’s claim on the ground indicated in the impugned order dtd.10.01.2020 under Annexure-13, as per the considered view of this Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Page 5 of 6 // 6 // Court is inclined to quash the order dtd.10.01.2020 under Annexure-13. While quashing the same, this Court permit the matter to comply the request made in letter dtd.06.10.2018 and 14.02.2019 (copies of the same being provided to the learned counsel for the Petitioner) within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such compliance of the request made in letter dtd.06.10.2018 and 14.02.2019, Opposite Party No.4 shall take a final decision on the claim of the Petitioner in accordance with the law within a further period of six (6) weeks. Copy of the decisions so taken by Opposite Party No.4 be also communicated to the Petitioner within the aforesaid time period.
Decision
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Nov-2024 13:47:44 Page 6 of 6