Orissa High Court
WP(C)/11105/2021 on 23 March, 2021
W.P.(C) No.11105 of 2021
02. 23.03.2021 Heard Mr.G.R. Sethi, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.S.P.Panda, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties.
From the impugned order vide Annexure-7,
it appears the claim of the petitioner pending for
Rehabilitation Assistance Appointment pending since
2014 involving a death of the year 2013 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
order at Annexure-7 sets aside the same, for their being
uks
no objection on behalf of the rest of the family members
2
for providing employment under Rehabilitation
Assistance Appointment Scheme to the petitioner, since
petitioner is otherwise eligible and the rejection of his
case is only on the ground that he is required to make
an application under Rule, 2020, the impugned order is
simply declared as bad in law. This Court accordingly
directs the O.P.5 to issue appointment order in favour of
the petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance
Appointment Scheme in the post looking to his
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 Sri S.P.
Panda, learned A.G.A. for communication of the order of
3
this Court and direction hereinabove to the Chief
Secretary of the State.
.....................................
Biswanath Rath, J.
