Balaram Harijan vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 9399 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                            W.P. (C) No. 27343 of 2021


            Balaram Harijan                     ....                              Petitioner
                                                               Mr. P.P. Dwivedy, Adv.
                                                -Versus -
            State of Odisha and others          ....                    Opposite Parties
                                                                                     .
                                                                        State Counsel

                    CORAM:
                     DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                                        ORDER

08.09.2021

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. L.P. Dwivedy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for compassionate appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. He further seeks to quash the communication dated 23.02.2016 issued by opposite party no.4 in Annexure-4 so far it relates to the petitioner.

4. Mr. L.P. Dwivedy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the son of the deceased employee, who died prematurely, applied for compassionate appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. But, his case was rejected vide communication dated 23.02.2016 in Annexure-4 on the ground that his father expired on 14.06.2006 and the fourth legal heir applied for appointment under

Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on 20.09.2008 though the spouse was available then. To substantiate his case, he has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Pabitra Mohan Palei v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Orissa & another (W.P.(C) No.15824 of 2013 disposed of on10.01.2014) and Rajendra Kumar Meher v. the Commissioner-cum-Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Odisha & others (W.P.(C) No.13677 of 2013 disposed of on 03.04.2019).

5. Learned State Counsel contended that since the Government employee expired on 14.06.2006, the fourth legal heir applied for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on 20.09.2008 though the spouse was available then, the claim made by the petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law.

6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, admittedly while the petitioner's father was in employment, he died prematurely on 14.06.2006. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and his application was duly scrutinized and was sought for instruction from the Collector, Koraput with regard to distress condition of the deceased family. The authority considered the same. Thereafter, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that he being the fourth legal heir applied for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on 20.09.2008 after expiry of two years of death of his father though the spouse was available then. But, the same cannot sustain in the eye of law in view of the ratio decided by this Court in Pabitra Mohan Palei (supra) wherein it is held that appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme/Rules is linked to the person and not to the post. If an employee dies in

harness, appointment may be given to his widow/son/unmarried daughter in Group 'B' or Group 'C' post. Therefore, this Court directed the authority to consider the case of the petitioner therein for compassionate appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme irrespective of the fact that he filed the application for appointment on account of death of his father in harness after expiry of one year.

7. Similarly, in Rajendra Kumar Meher (supra), this Court relying upon the judgment passed by the apex Court in Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 1596 and Satya Narayan Dash v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Orissa and others (W.P.(C) No.5058 of 2014, disposed of on 29.03.2014) directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner therein with regard to compassionate appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.

8. Applying the said principles to the present context, the petitioner being the fourth legal representative of the deceased, his claim for compassionate appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme cannot be rejected. Accordingly, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing the authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

Ashok                                                 (Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
                                                           Judge