Sudipta Sahu vs State Of Orissa & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 7072 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                WPC No.13882 of 2021

            Sudipta Sahu                          ....             Petitioner
                                     Mr. B.N.Parida & Associates, Advocates

                                       -versus-
            State of Orissa & ors.                ....      Opposite Parties
                    Mr. D.Mohapatra, Standing Counsel for S &ME Department

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
                                      ORDER

13.07.2021 Order No.

02. 1. This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.

2. Heard Mr.B.N.Parida, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department.

3. In the accompanying writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for a direction to the opposite party no.1 to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme forthwith in terms of the decision reported in the case of Ritanjali Giri alias Paul in W.P.(C) No.5022 of 2013.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the father of the petitioner is working in an educational institution receiving block grant, in view of the judgment rendered in Ritanjali Giri @ Paul v. State of Odisha (School & M.E. Deptt) & others, 2016(1) ILR -1162 wherein this Court has already held that the legal

// 2 //

heirs of deceased employees of educational institutions receiving block grant are entitled to get compassionate appointment, pursuant to which the Government of Odisha in the Department of School and Mass Education has issued a circular on 01.08.2019 granting benefit of compassionate appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased employees working in fully aided educational institutions and educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid (new) block grant, therefore, other benefits as claimed in the writ application should be extended to the petitioner.

5. Mr.Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Department contended that the ratio decided in the case of Ritanjali Giri (supra) is only confined to grant of benefit under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.

6. The father of the petitioner initially got block grant as per the Grant-in-Aid Order 2004 and subsequently full grant-in-aid as per Grant-in-aid Order, 2017.

7. Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties and without delving into the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that since the benefit of compassionate appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased employees of educational institutions receiving block grant has already been extended by the authority, vide Circular dated 01.08.2019, the opposite party no.1 is directed to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme taking into account the ratio decided in the case of Ritanjali Giril (supra) within a period of four

// 3 //

months from the date of communication of this order. Needless to mention here that, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit, as claimed in the writ application, in consonance with the law laid down in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra), the same shall be extended within the time stipulated.

8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

9. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a print out of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned Advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court's notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge