The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 24-Apr-2025 11:47:54 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 36762 OF 2023 Santosh Kumar Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. Niranjan Lenka, Advocate District and Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada and others -versus- …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Umesh Chandra Behura, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Order No. 4. 1. 2.
Decision
ORDER 23.04.2025 This mater is taken up through hybrid mode. Petitioner has approached this Court alleging inaction on the part of learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada-Opposite Party No.1 in considering his application for appointment under Odisha Civil Services (Appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (for brevity, ‘RA Rules 1990’). 3. Mr. Lenka, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that mother of the Petitioner, namely, Arundhati Nayak was a regular employee in the office of District and Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada and was working as Peon. During her continuance in service, mother of the Petitioner breathed her last on 15th September, 2015. Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted an application along with required documents on 9th February, 2016 for appointment under the RA Rules 1990. Since his application Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 24-Apr-2025 11:47:54 was kept pending without being considered, the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.20237 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 17th February, 2023 directing the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada to dispose of his application in accordance with law within a period of two months. In spite of the same, application of the Petitioner was kept pending. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Referring to counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 Mr. Lenka, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that that the application filed by the Petitioner has already been rejected vide order dated 8th August, 2023 (Annexure-G/1 to the counter affidavit). Mr. Lenka, learned counsel further submits that on a bare perusal of the said order rejecting application of the Petitioner for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme was considered and rejected as per Rule 6 (2)(b) of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 (for brevity, ‘RA Rules 2020’). 4.1 It is his submission that in view of the recent amendment to the provisions of RA Rules 2020, application of the Petitioner for appointment under such Scheme should have been considered under RA Rules 1990. He referred to the notification dated 4th April, 2025 issued by the General Administration and Public Grievance Department, Government of Odisha by which the RA Rules 2020 undergone an amendment. The relevant amended provision of Rule 6 (9) of RA Rules 2020 is reproduced for ready reference. Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 24-Apr-2025 11:47:54 In “2. (Rehabilitation the Odisha Civil Services Assistance) Rules,2020 (hereinafter referred to as the “said rules”), in rule 6,— (i) for sub-rule (9), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely :— "(9) (a) All pending applications, relating to death of Government employee prior to the date of commencement of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 shall be dealt in accordance with the rules prevailing on the date of death of Government employee for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme: Provided that in case the death of Government employee occurred on or after commencement of the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2016 and before commencement of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020, shall be governed by the provisions of the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990. (b) In case the death of Government employee occurred the Odisha Civil Service prior to commencement of (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2016, shall be dealt on the basis of distress certificate available in the existing the Odisha Civil Service or original application as per (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990. (c) In case the death of Government employee occurred on or after commencement of the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2016 and before commencement of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020, the appointing authority shall ascertain the present financial distress of the family by calling for a report from Collector of the district in which the family ordinarily resides, as to whether the family is in financial distress as per the provisions of rule 8 of the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990.” It is submitted that since the date of death of mother of the Petitioner was 15th September, 2015, i.e., before coming into force of RA Rules 2020, his application should have been considered under the RA Rules prevailing then, namely, RA Rules 1990. 5. Mr. Behura, learned AGA submits that in view of the amendment of RA Rules 2020, the application of the Petitioner for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme as per RA Rules 1990 should be considered afresh. Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 24-Apr-2025 11:47:54 6. Accordingly, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case of the Petitioner for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada- Opposite Party No.1 to consider the application of the Petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme afresh in terms of the provisions of RA Rules 1990 and communicate the result thereof to the Petitioner as expeditiously a possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 6.1 As a consequence, the order rejecting application of the Petitioner for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme under Annexure-G/1 to the counter affidavit becomes otiose and shall not be given effect to. Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (A.C. Behera) Judge s.s.ssatpathy Page 4 of 4