Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sarajini Jena vs State Of Odisha And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 9740 Ori

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 9740 Ori
Judgement Date : 15 September, 2021

Orissa High Court
Sarajini Jena vs State Of Odisha And Ors on 15 September, 2021
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        W.P.(C) No.21320 of 2021

      Sarajini Jena                        ....                      Petitioner
                                                        Mr. Sidheswar Mallik,
                                                                    Advocate

                                     -versus-


      State of Odisha and Ors.             ....               Opposite Parties
                                                           Mr. D. Mohapatra,
                                                Standing Counsel for S. & M.E.

      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
                                  JUDGMENT

Date of Hearing and Judgment:15.09.2021

03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition involves a direction to the opposite parties

to provide employment to the petitioner on consideration of her

application under rehabilitation assistance scheme following the

ratio decided in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul Vrs. State of

Odisha (School & M.E. Deptt.) & Ors., reported in 2016 (I) ILR-

CUT-1162.

3. Background involving the case is that petitioner's husband

late Gangadhar Jena was working as a trained graduate teacher in

// 2 //

Sarath Biswal Vidyapitha, Andalsingh under Kanas Block in the

district of Puri. It is claimed that while the husband was continuing

in his above capacity died in harness on 29.04.2011 leaving behind

the petitioner as widow and two minor children. It is in the premises

that husband of the petitioner was working in an aided educational

institution by way of block grant. Petitioner submitted application

for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme but

however the application for rehabilitation assistance appointment at

the instance of the petitioner was not accepted. It is only after

decision of this Court came through Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra),

there is creation of a right in favour of the persons already involving

block grant schools required to be treated like that of the employees

in the aided educational institutions. It is after coming to know this

legal position, petitioner applied for appointment under

rehabilitation assistance scheme following decision vide Ritanjali

Giri @ Paul (supra) by submitting another application on

25.06.2020. It is also claimed that in the meantime, the Head Master

of the School forwarded the application of the petitioner to the

District Education Officer, Puri with all required documents, vide

his letter dated 25.06.2020. It is alleged even though an evaluation is

made of all the applications received in the office of the District

// 3 //

Education Officer, Puri, wherein, petitioner was found to have

secured 80% of the maximum marks highest amongst all candidates

considered but however, while depriving the petitioner, one Prasant

Kumar Mangraj's case was considered for appointment in disposal

of W.P.(C) No.13289 of 2021.

4. Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner in the above

backdrop of the matter and for the petitioner's case getting support

through Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra) as well as the decision in

W.P.(C) No.13289 of 2021 claimed for allowing the writ petition

and issuing appropriate direction to the competent authority for

providing appointment to the petitioner.

5. Mr.Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the State

Department opposed the move of the petitioner on the premises that

there being no final decision involving the petitioner, it should be

treated as a pending case, no writ is entertainable at this stage. Mr.

Mohapatra further also contended that in the meantime

correspondences extending benefit of Rehabilitation Assistance

Appointment to Aided Institutions having been recalled. The claim

of the petitioner does not deserve any merit. Mr.Mohapatra,

therefore, objected entertaining of the writ petition for having no

merit otherwise.

// 4 //

6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court

finds undisputedly the application for Rehabilitation Assistance

Appointment at the instance of the petitioner is still pending, this

Court in disposal of W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020 decided on

13.9.2021 already came to hold that pending applications shall be

considered in the light of the provision under Orissa Civil Services

(Rehabilitation Assistance Rules) 1990 and amended Rule 2016.

This Apart, in deciding Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra), this Court

also observed there should not be any distinction between the aided

and government institution taking into account the nature of duty

discharged by persons involving both categories. Further in disposal

of W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020, this Court taking into consideration

several judgments of Hon'ble apex Court has also come to hold that

for the nature of service involved, petitioner being an employee in

aided institution should be treated at par with the employee of the

government establishment. It is also observed therein that once

benefit is granted to a particular person, the same benefit has to be

extended to all such persons standing in similar footing. It is in the

circumstance but however taking this case to be a pending case as

the application of the petitioner for appointment is still pending final

decision, this Court in disposal of the writ petition directs the

// 5 //

opposite party nos.2 and 3 to take final decision on the pending

application of the petitioner, but however keeping in view the ratio

decided in Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra) as well as the judgment of

this Court dated 13.09.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020 by

undertaking the entire exercise within a period of three months and

also keeping in view if similar benefits have been granted to Prasant

Kumar Mangaraj on the basis of disposal of W.P.(C) No.13289 of

2021.

7. The writ petition thus stands disposed of.

............................................ BISWANATH RATH, J.

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

Dated the 15thday of September, 2021/uks, PA

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter