Shantilata Barik And Others vs Secy. Home Affairs Dept. Bbsr
2022 Latest Caselaw 1639 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               W.P.(C) No.32181 Of 2011
                                (Through hybrid mode)

            Shantilata Barik and others              ....               Petitioners

                                                          Mr. B.Singh, Advocate
                                          -versus-

            Secy. Home Affairs Dept. BBSR            ....         Opposite parties.
            and others
                                                          Mr. A.K.Sharma, AGA


                      CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                      ORDER

03.03.2022 Order No.

12. 1. Mr. Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and

submits, petitioners are entitled to compensation and employment for

one of them on death of Sukura Singh, who died while on duty as a

Grama Rakhi. He relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in

Niranjan Nayak vs. State of Odisha, reported in 2007 (II) OLR 197,

paragraph 6 to submit, view taken was that Grama Rakhi post was

under administrative control of District Magistrate and is a civil post.

He then relies on rule 1 (3) in Odisha Civil Services (Compassionate

Grant) Rules, 1964 to submit, the rules apply to all State Government

servants, including the work charged job-contract and contingency-

paid employees other than daily rated employees. Rule 3 provides for

// 2 //

entitlement of the family of a Government Servant to be eligible to

compassionate grant. He hands up resolution dated 21st June, 2010,

whereby Government of Odisha, Finance Department resolved, inter

alia, rate of compensation in grant to be Rs.4,00,000/- for a

Government servant died while on duty. He points out that the

deceased died during duty of night patrolling, in a road accident. The

facts are admitted.

2. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government

Advocate appears on behalf of State and draws attention to paragraph

8 in the counter. He submits, there is no provision available to provide

compensation to petitioners. The deceased was not serving as regular

employee and, therefore, the scheme of rehabilitation assistance may

not be extended to petitioners.

3. There cannot be dispute on the deceased not being a daily rated

employee. State is to answer whether the rules of 1964 apply to the

deceased. In event it does, under resolution dated 21st June, 2010,

compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- is to be paid.

4. List on 22nd March, 2022.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Prasant