Orissa High Court
Amulya Patel vs Orissa Industrial on 10 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 6594 of 2016
Amulya Patel .... Petitioner
Mr. Sameer Ku. Das, Advocate
-versus-
Orissa Industrial .... Opp. Parties
Infrastructure Development
Corporation (IDCO),
Bhubaneswar and Others
Mr. P. K. Pasayat, Advocate
(O.P. No. 1 to 4)
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 10.10.2022
07. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, so also
learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, relying on the
Judgment of the Apex Court dated 20.05.2022 in Civil
Appeal No. 4103 of 2022, arising out of S.L.P. (Civil)
No. 936/2022, in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vs.
State of Orissa and Others, brings to the notice of
this Court with regard to the observation made at
Paragraph-5 of the said Judgment, which reads as
follows:-
"5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the
respective parties at length.
// 2 //
We have noted that there is a conflict of
view, as to whether the scheme/rules in force on
the date of death of the government servant would
apply or the scheme/rules in force on the date of
consideration of the application on compassion
ground would apply. There are divergent views and
the conflict of opinion in different decisions of this
Court. However, keeping the said question aside,
for the reasons stated hereinbelow, we are of the
opinion that in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the appellant herein
shall be entitled for appointment on compassionate
ground as per the 1990 rules, which were
applicable at the time when the deceased employee
died and the appellant herein made an application
for appointment on the death of his father, i.e. in
the year 2010."
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further makes a
submission that the case of the Petitioner is squarely
covered by the Judgment of the Apex Court as his
application for appointment under the Rehabilitation
Assistance Scheme was considered by the Opposite
Parties-Management much prior to the Office Order
dated 06.06.2015, as at Annexure-9, which is
impugned in the present Writ Petition.
5. Mr. Abhijit Pattnaik, learned Counsel for IDCO,
submits that as to whether the Scheme/Rules in force
on the date of death of the Government servant would
apply or the Scheme/Rules in force on the date of
consideration of the application on compassionate
grounds, is under consideration before the Apex Court
being referred to larger Bench by the Judgment
reported in 2019 (5) SCC 600, the hearing of the
present Writ Petition should be kept in abeyance till
conclusion of the decision taken by the Apex Court in
terms of the reference made to the larger Bench.
// 3 //
6. In view of such divergent submissions made by the
learned Counsels for the parties, list the matter in the
week commencing from 01.11.2022 under the heading
"For Admission" for further hearing.
(S. K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
AKPradhan
