The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.28133 of 2024 Pinaki Mohapatra …. Petitioner Mr. A.K. Saa, Advocate State of Odisha and Others …. -versus- Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No.
Decision
ORDER 06.01.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 04.12.2024, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State produced the instruction in Court. The same be kept in record. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the above circumstance, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by quashing the order dtd.28.06.2024 passed by the opposite party no.3 under Annexure-7 to the writ petition. And this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the opposite parties, more particularly the opposite parties 3 to the to issue appointment order Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, as per the rule that was in force at the time of death of the deceased government employee, i.e. Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 befitting to his educational qualification in terms of the ratio decided in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethi (supra) within a stipulated period”. the petitioner under // 2 // 5. It is contended that on the death of the Petitioner’s mother on 22.11.2011, Petitioner made the application to get the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on 21.01.2013 under Annexure-3. 5.1. It is contended that after receipt of such application, distress certificate was also issued by the Collector on 22.11.2014 under Annexure-5. In spite of issuance of the distress certificate when no further action was taken in providing appointment to the Petitioner, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.785 of 2024. This Court vide order dtd.18.01.2024 when directed Opposite Party No.3 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim, on consideration of the same, the impugned order was passed on 28.06.2024 under Annexure-7. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme was rejected relying on the amended provisions of 2020. 5.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner’s mother died while in service on 22.11.2011 and the application was made within the stipulated time period with issuance of the distress certificate in his favour in the year 2014, the ground on which claim of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order under Annexuxre-7 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5.3. In support of his submission, Mr. A.K. Saa, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of the Page 2 of 5 // 3 // Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malayananda Sethy v. State of Orissa, Civil Appeal No.4103 of 2022 disposed of on 20.05.2022. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 6. On instruction, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State though did not dispute the fact that Petitioner made the application after the death of her mother under Annexure-3 and on consideration of the same, distress certificate was also issued by the Collector, but it is contended that since pursuant to letter issued by Opposite Party No.3 on 25.05.2018, Petitioner did not produce the required documents his claim was not considered. This Court when directed for consideration of the said claim vide order passed in W.P.(C) No.785 of 2024 and by that time 2020 amended Rules had come into force, Petitioner’s claim was considered in accordance with the amended provisions and Petitioner was not found eligible to get the benefit. Accordingly claim of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.28.06.2024 under Annexure-7. 6.1. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by Opposite Party No.3 in rejecting the Petitioner’s claim. 7. To the submissions made by learned Addl. Standing Counsel, Mr. Saa, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that on receipt of letter dtd.25.05.2018, Petitioner has already complied the requirements. In spite Page 3 of 5 // 4 // of such compliance, when no action was taken, Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.785 of 2024. When this Court directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim, relying on the amended provisions, claim of the Petitioner was rejected. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that on the death of the Petitioner’s mother on 22.11.2011, Petitioner made the application under Annexure-3 and the said application was not only entertained but also distress certificate was issued by the Collector vide letter dtd.22.11.2024 under Annexure-5. 8.1. It is found that after such receipt of the distress certificate, no action was taken and accordingly Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.785 of 2024. This Court vide order dtd.18.01.2024 under Annexure-6 when directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim, the same has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.28.06.2024 under Annexure-7 relying on the amended provisions 2020. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Malayananda Sethy v. State of Orissa as cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that since Petitioner’s mother died while in service on 22.11.2011, rules prevailing at the time of her death, should have been taken into consideration while considering the claim of the Petitioner in terms of the order passed by this Court under Page 4 of 5 // 5 // Annexure-6. Since it is found that claim of the Petitioner has been rejected relying on the amended provisions 2020, as per the considered view of this Court, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 8.2. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.28.06.2024 so passed by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-7. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opposite Party No.3 to take a fresh decision as per the rules prevailing at the time of death of the deceased employee. Petitioner is also directed to comply the requirement so indicated in letter dtd.25.05.2018 of Opposite Party No.3 within a period of two (2) weeks from today. On such compliance, Opposite Party No.3 shall take a fresh decision as directed hereinabove within a further period of two (2) months with due communication to the Petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Subrat (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Jan-2025 16:43:23 Page 5 of 5