Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 9740 Ori
Judgement Date : 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
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!