Orissa High Court
Doctor Gouda vs Director on 20 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OAC) No. 3002 of 2009
Doctor Gouda ..... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate, along with
Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate
Vs.
Director, Elementary Education ..... Opposite parties
Mr. S. Rath, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
20.10.2022
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with
Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Jena, learned
Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Department.
3. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking direction to the
opposite parties to extend the Rehabilitation Assistance benefit in favour of
the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the ratio of the
decision of the apex court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of
Odisha and others, Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2022 arising out of S.L.P.
(Civil) No. 936 of 2022 disposed of on 20.05.2022 is fully applicable to the
present case. Therefore, the case of the petitioner may be considered keeping
in view the principle decided in the said case.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education
Department contended that since the petitioner had approached the
authorities with much delay, in view of the decision of the apex Court in the
case of State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3
SCC 653, the benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be extended to
the petitioner. According to him, though the father of the petitioner died in
the year 1980, the petitioner approached the authority in the year 1985. He
further contended that such a decision has already been relied by this Court
in W.P.(C) No. 11004 of 2019 (Jogeswar Bag v. State of Odisha and
others).
6. However, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner may be permitted to file a fresh representation before the authority
concerned highlighting the grievances and direction may be given to
consider the same within a stipulated time, to which learned counsel for the
State has no objection.
7. As agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, however, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition stands
disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioner, with regard to the
grievance made in this petition, files a fresh comprehensive representation
before the authority concerned, within fifteen days hence, the said authority
shall consider the same and pass a reasoned and speaking order keeping in
view the aforementioned judgments, as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such
representation along with the certified copy of this order.
8. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
Arun (DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.)
