The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.40492 of 2023 Sunia Murmu State of Odisha & Ors. …. Petitioner Mr. R.Mohanty,Advocate ….
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr. P.K.Muduli, A.G.A. -versus- CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 15.12.2023 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 for the State. Perused the Writ Petition, as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer : “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue RULE NISI calling upon the opp. parties to show cause as to why appropriate writ / writs shall not be issued setting aside the impugned order of rejection dt. 29.03.2023, annexure-8, and further to show cause as to why direction shall not be issued to the opp. parties, in particular the opp. party no.1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under RA Scheme under the OCS (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 and to complete the process of appointment within a time stipulated period as this Hon’ble Court pleases to fix and upon perusal of the causes shown, if any, or upon insufficient causes shown, make the said RULE absolute and may pass such other order / orders as deemed just and proper.” It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, the 4. husband of the petitioner who was working as Government employee // 2 // died in harness on 08.03.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground by submitting an application on 14.10.2016, while the old rule was in force. Such application, filed by the petitioner, was rejected by the opposite parties by applying the new rules of the year 2020, keeping in view the G.A. Department notification dated 17.02.2020, vide order dated 22.06.2022, under Annexure-6. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.19407 of 2022, whereupon a coordinate bench of this Court, vide order dated 19.10.2020, set aside the impugned rejection order under Annexure-6 and specifically directed the opposite party to consider the case of the petitioner under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 which was prevailing at the time of the concerned application. However, the Opposite Parties vide order dated 29.03.2023, under Annexure-8 to the writ application, have again rejected the application of the petitioner by applying the OCS (RA) Rule, 2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1, State of West Bengal-v.-Debabrata Tiwri reported in (2023 (3) SCALE- 557,Suchitra Bal v. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 & batch decided on 27.06.2023 and State of Odisha and others vs. Bindu Sagar Samantaray in W.A.No.810 of 2021 and Biswajit Swain vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 decided on 31.10.2023, such application of the petitioner should have been considered under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 instead of the Rules of the year 2020. Moreover, the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 is contrary to the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that, the opposite party have not committed any illegality by // 3 // passing the impugned order under Annexure-8 in the writ application. Further, it was contended by the Learned AGA that, at the time of consideration of the application, the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 was in force, and in view of the G.A. Department circular dated 17.02.2020, the case of the petitioner has been duly considered and the same has been rejected by passing a speaking order. Learned Additional Government Advocate, further referred to the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.C. Santosh’s case, and accordingly submitted that the opposite party could not have committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner. In such view of the matter, learned AGA submitted before this Court that, the rejection of petitioner’s application is legal and proper, and accordingly, the present writ application is devoid of merit, and the same should be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, upon a careful consideration of the submissions made, and on a careful examination of the background facts of this case, as well as keeping in view the position of law, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage admission by setting aside the impugned rejection order under Annexure-8 to the writ application. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the matter afresh in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court, as has been referred to hereinabove. Moreover, while considering the application of the petitioner, the opposite parties shall also consider the law laid down by this Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1, State of West Bengal-v.-Debabrata Tiwri reported in (2023 (3) SCALE-557,Suchitra Bal v. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 & batch decided on 27.06.2023 and State of Odisha and others vs. Bindu Sagar Samantaray in W.A.No.810 of 2021 and Biswajit Swain vs. State of // 4 // Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 decided on 31.10.2023. Further, it is directed that the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the case of the petitioner, and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with the law and in light of judgment of this Court, as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the judgment of the coordinate Bench in the earlier writ application, and dispose of the representation of the petitioner by passing speaking order within a period of two months from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order. Any final decision so taken, be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 20-Dec-2023 19:50:31