Orissa High Court
Sasmita Paikaray vs State Of Odisha And Others on 11 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 14411 of 2020
Sasmita Paikaray ..... Petitioner
Mr. K.C. Sahu, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
11.08.2021
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
4.
Heard Mr. K.C. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Addl. Government Advocate.
From the impugned orders dated 17.03.2020 and 02.06.2021
vide Annexures-11 and 12 respectively, it appears the claim of the
petitioner pending for Rehabilitation Assistance Appointment
pending since 2018 involving a death of the year 2018 to be
considered applying the 2020 rules, a rule which has not seen the
light of the day either on the date of death of the deceased or on the
date of application or even at the time of consideration of the
recommendation of the case of the petitioner. For the settled
position of law through the decision in the case of Canara Bank
Vrs. M. Mahesh Kumar, reported in 2015 (7) SCC 412, the latest
decision of the Hon'ble apex Court, through the decision in the case
of Indian Bank and others Vrs. Promila and another, reported
in 2020 (2) SCC 729 and several decisions of this Court particularly
involving W.P.(C) Nos.8486 of 2021 and 10571 of 2021, it is
observed law on this score has been settled and there remains no
doubt while considering the case of Rehabilitation Assistance
Appointment, the rule prevailing at the time of death has the
relevancy. For the operation of Rule, 1990, the Amendment Rule,
2016 at the relevant point of time there is no possibility of
application of OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 to the case at hand. In this
view of the matter, this Court interfering with the orders dated
17.03.2020 and 02.06.2021 at Annexures-11 and 12 sets aside the
same, for their being no objection on behalf of the rest of the family
members for providing employment under Rehabilitation Assistance
Appointment Scheme to the petitioner, since petitioner is otherwise
eligible and the rejection of her case is only on the ground that she
is required to make an application under Rule, 2020, the impugned
order is simply declared as bad in law. This Court accordingly
directs the opposite parties no.1 & 3 to issue appointment order in
favour of the petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance
Appointment Scheme in the post looking to her qualification aspect
within a period of one month from the date of communication of the
order.
With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed
of.
For this Court facing similar dispute being passed by different
Public Authority involving appointment under Rehabilitation
Assistance Appointment Scheme everyday, this Court feels it
appropriate to request the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Odisha to issue
necessary directions/instructions to all concerned to at least apply
the rule prevailing at the time of submission of the application of
this nature also taking into consideration the rule prevailing at the
time of date of death of the deceased and decide such matters
accordingly. If feels appropriate, the Chief Secretary may circulate
copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court referred to herein
above as well as the High Court judgment/order at least in an
attempt to lesser the burden of this Court.
A copy of this order be supplied to learned Addl. Government
Advocate for communication of the order of this Court and direction
hereinabove to the Chief Secretary of the State.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
A.K. Rana (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
