The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 02. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.33021 of 2024 Sandeep Kumar Ghadei ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Manoj Kumar Panda -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Director, Printing, Stationary And Publication, Cuttack 3) The Collector, Cuttack ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr.M.R.Mohanty, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 18.02.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer : “ The Petitioner therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ Petition, issue rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the impugned Office order No.6433 dated 29.07.2024 under Annexure-8 shall not be quashed and they shall not be directed to give appointment to the Petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Rule, 1990 Page 1 of 6. which was in force at the relevant point of time and as per the judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in WPC(OAC) No.4126 of 2016 in the fact and circumstances of the case within a stipulated period of time and if the Opposite Parties are failed to show cause or show insufficient cause make the said rule absolute by issuing appropriate writ/writs in the fact and circumstances of the case for the interest of justice, And/or to pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper in the fact of this case.” 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the father of the Petitioner who was a Government employee died in harness on 16.12.2012. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground. The application of the Petitioner was rejected vide order dated 30.10.2015 under Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition. He further contended that the application of the Petitioner and similarly situated other candidates for appointment under Group- C post was rejected on the ground that the spouse of the deceased employee is alive and available for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Therefore, referring to the provision 2(b) of OCS(RA) Rules, 1990, the application of the Petitioner and other similarly situated persons have been rejected. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2015 the Petitioner approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by filing O.A. No.4126 (C) of 2016. After Page 2 of 6. abolition of the learned OAT, the above noted Original Application was transferred to this Court and registered as WPC(OAC) No.4126 of 2016. He further submitted that a coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12.02.2024 allowed the Writ Petition and accordingly the order dated 30.10.2015 under Annexue-4 was quashed and the matter was remanded to the competent authority with a further direction to reconsider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the discussion and observation made in the aforesaid judgment dated 12.02.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that after disposal of the aforesaid Writ Petition, the Petitioner approached Opposite Party No.1 along with a copy of the judgment dated 12.02.2024. He further contended that vide order dated 29.07.2024 the Opposite Party No.2 rejected the application of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 29.07.2024, the Petitioner has again approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 7. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the application of the Petitioner was rejected vide order dated 29.07.2024 on the ground that the Petitioner has not submitted his application in the revised format as requested by the Director vide letter dated 09.07.2024 for consideration of his case under the OCS(RA) Rule 2020. On further scrutiny of the said letter, it is revealed that the Opposite Party No.2 has returned the Rehabilitation Assistance Application of the Petitioner by stating therein that the application of the Petitioner has not been made in proper format under OCS(RA) Rule 2020. Page 3 of 6. 8. In course of his argument learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of Suchitra Bal vs. Stae of Odisha & Ors. by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 decided on 16.03.2023 and in the case of Biswajit Swain vs. State of Odisha and Others in W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 submitted that in similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court along with this bench has specifically held that the application of the Petitioner is required to be considered under OCS(RA) Rule, 1990 as the death of the deceased employee occurred in the year 2012 but the Opposite Parties sat over the matter. In such view of the matter it was contended that the application of the Petitioner should be considered under the OCS(RA) Rule 1990 instead of directing the Petitioner to furnish a fresh application in the revised format. 9. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State on the other hand contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in returning the application of the Petitioner in view of the order dated 29.07.2024 under Annexure-8. Further, it was submitted that since the Petitioner has not submitted his application as is required under OCS(RA) Rule, 2020, his application has been returned with a request to resubmit his application in the revised format. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is devoid of merit and as such the conduct of the Opposite Parties in issuing the letter under Annexure-8 does not call for any interference of this Court. 10. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, on careful analysis of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, taking into consideration the Page 4 of 6. date of death of Government employee and further keeping in view the factual background of this case, this Court is of the view that there is no dispute with regard to the death of the Government employee and the date on which the application was submitted for appointment on compassionate ground. In the earlier Writ Application the coordinate Bench held that the conduct of the Opposite Parties in considering the application of the Petitioner under the OCS (RA) Rules is illegal and the matter was remanded to the authorities for reconsideration. While the matter was pending before the authority, the Petitioner was intimated to submit a fresh application under OCS(RA) Rule 2020. In this context, the Petitioner has referred to the judgments delivered by the Division Bench in the case of Suchitra Bal vs. State of Odisha in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 decided on 16.03.2023 as well as Bindusagar Samantaray vs. State of Odisha and Ors. by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.810 of 2021 and in the case of Biswajit Swain vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021. This Court would also like to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa and others: reported in 2022(II) OLR (SC)-1. 11. Furthermore, in Biswajit Swain’s case, it has been held that Rule 6(9) of the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 to be ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that there is no doubt with regard to the proposition that the pending application made prior to the date on which the new OCS(RA) Rule, 2020 came into force are to be considered under the old Rules of the year 1990. Moreover, though in the present case the application of the Petitioner was Page 5 of 6. earlier considered under OCS(RA) Rule 1990 and the same was rejected referring to Section 2(b) of 1990 Rules, however, subsequently the same has been rejected under the new Rules, 2020. The earlier rejection was set aside on the ground that the same is illegal in view of the judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in WPC(OAC) No.4126 of 2016 by a coordinate Bench of this Court. Under the aforesaid scenario, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that the application of the Petitioner should be considered under the OCS(RA) Rule, 1990. 12. Accordingly, while disposing of the present Writ Petition, this Court deems it proper to set aside the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 under Annexure-8 and the same is hereby set aside. Furthermore, the matter is remanded to the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner keeping in view the observations made herein above and the judgments referred in this order. It is further directed that the application of the Petitioner shall be considered within a period of three months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order and
Decision
be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within 10 days from the date of taking such decision. 13. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 14. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 6 of 6. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Feb-2025 11:13:42