The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.567 of 2025 Santosh Kumar Nayak ..... Petitioner -versus- ..... 1) State Of Odisha 2) Director Of Health Services 3) Medical Superintendent, Scb Medical College And Hospital Represented By Adv. - Siddharth Prasad Mishra Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Ms. B.K.Sahu, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 19.02.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the documents as well as annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “In Under the facts and circumstances as narrated above, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the 0pp. Parties and after hearing the parties be pleased to quash the order dated 22.08.2024 under Annexure-8 passed by the 0pp. Party No. 3 and direct the relevant authorities to grant appointment to the petitioner to an appropriate post under the rehabilitation scheme in lieu of the death of his father, Late Pratap Page 1 of 6. Nayak, as expeditiously as possible and pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems Just and proper.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that the father of the petitioner while working as a Sweeper at the SCB Medical College and Hospital, died in harness on 02.02.2011 leaving behind his legal heirs. The petitioner being one of the legal heirs applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 within the period of limitation as stipulated in the state rules i.e. in the year 2011. Initially, the prayer of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 12.07.2013 by the Government on the ground that the petitioner was the 3rd legal heir of late Pratap Nayak, the deceased Government employee. 5. He further contended that challenging the rejection order dated 12.07.2013, the petitioner approached the learned O.A.T. by filing O.A. No.1265(C)/2015. The tribunal disposed of the said O.A. vide order dated 23.02.2016 with a direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under the RA scheme. Taking into consideration the No Objection Certificate submitted by the other legal heirs in support of the present petitioner. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.1 again rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is the 3rd legal heir of the deceased government employee. Challenging order dated 20.04.2016, the petitioner again approached the tribunal by filing O.A. No.1259(C) of 2018. Page 2 of 6. 6. While the aforesaid O.A. was pending before the learned OAT, the learned OAT was abolished and the OA was transferred to this Court and as re-registered as WPC(OAC) No.1259 of 2018. A Co-ordinate bench of this Court after hearing the matter, with the consent of both sides, vide order dated 29.10.2021 disposed of the writ application thereby quashing the impugned order under Annexures-3 and 4, passed by the Opposite Party No.1 rejecting the claim of the present petitioner, with a further direction to the Opposite party No.1 to reconsider the case of the petitioner without taking the plea that the petitioner is the 3rd legal heir. The Opposite party No.1 was directed to consider the case within a period of three months from the date of communication of copy of that order. After disposal of the abovenoted writ application the petitioner again approached the Opposite Parties, however the matter was kept pending. 7. Finally, the Opposite Party No.3 requested the petitioner to file a fresh application under the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020. Being aggrieved by such decision of the Opposite Party, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CONTC No.1985 of 2022 alleging violation of this Court’s order dated 29.10.2021. The abovenoted CONTC application was disposed of vide order dated 22.04.2022 by directing the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the petitioner, within a period of one month, under the provisions of OCS Rules, 1990. Despite such direction by this Court the Opposite Party No.3 again rejected the claim of Page 3 of 6. the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible for such appointment under the provisions of the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 vide order dated 22.08.2024 under Annexure-8 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the petitioner has again approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the order passed by this Court has been carried out by the Opposite parties. Therefore, no fault can be ascribed to the Opposite Parties in rejecting the application of the petitioner vide order dated 22.08.2024. He further submitted that since at the time of consideration of the petitioner’s application the new rule of the year 2020 was in force and keeping in view the GA & PG Department circular dated 17.02.2020, the case of the petitioner was considered under the new rule and the petitioner was found not eligible in terms of the rules of the year 2020. On such ground, learned counsel for the State submitted that Opposite parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 9. 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 date of death of Government employee and further keeping in view the factual background of this case, this Court is of the Page 4 of 6. 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 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 27.06.2023 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. Additionally, 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. 10. Furthermore, in Biswajit Swain’s case, it has been held that Rule 6(9) of the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 is 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 applications 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. 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. 11. Accordingly, while disposing of the present Writ Petition, this Court deems it proper to set aside the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 under Annexure-8 series and the same is hereby set Page 5 of 6. aside. Furthermore, the matter is remanded to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, keeping in view the observations made herein above and the judgments referred to 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 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. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 13. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 6 of 6. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Feb-2025 10:26:49