Orissa High Court
Sunita Barik & Anr vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 21 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC(OAC) No.671 of 2017
In the matter of an application under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985.
..................
Sunita Barik & Anr. .... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : M/s. L.P. Dwivedy(Advocate)
For Opp. Parties : Mr. A.P. Das
Additional Standing Counsel
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 26.08.2022 and Date of Judgment:21.10.2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical)
Mode.
2. Heard Mr. L.P. Dwivedy, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. A.P.
Das, learned ASC appearing for the Opp. Parties.
3. The present writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"In view of the above facts mentioned in Para-6 above the
applicant prays for the following reliefs:-
// 2 //
(i) Quash the order dated 08.04.2016 passed by the High
Power Committee under Annexure-6 as far as it relates
to the applicants by concurrently holding the same as
bad in law and thereby direct the State Respondents to
appoint the applicant No. 1 in a suitable post within a
stipulated period as may be prescribed by this Hon'ble
Tribunal;
(ii) And pass such any other order/orders, direction/directions
as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide
interest of justice."
4. It is submitted that on the death of the Petitioner's father on 01.06.2011,
who was working as Survey Khalasi (W/C) in Rengali Irrigation Department,
the Petitioner made her application for appointment under the provision of
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, being the unmarried daughter of the
deceased employee.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Chief Engineer sent
the proposal to the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department for
consideration of her appointment after receipt of the distress certificate.
Subsequently, vide Annexure-5 the proposal was recommended to the Govt.-
O.P. No. 2 for taking further action in the matter.
6. It is submitted that though everything was complied with, but O.P. No. 3
basing on the impugned order dtd.08.04.2016 under Annexure-7 rejected the
claim of the Petitioner vide Annexure-6 on the ground that the spouse of the
deceased employee since was alive at the time of his death, the Petitioner's
claim cannot be considered for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance
Scheme.
7. It is also submitted that the grounds on which the claim of the Petitioner
was rejected is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court
reported in the case of Ajit Kumar Barik Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (2018
(II) OLR P-10).
// 3 //
8. It is submitted that in the said reported decision it has been held that
"Family Members" as defined under Rules 2(b) of the OCS (R.A.) Rules,
1990 are eligible to make their application and there is no hard and first rule
that only wife/husband of the deceased Govt. employee is eligible to make
such application. It is also submitted that since the Petitioner complied with
all the requirements and wife of the deceased employee had already crossed
the age of 55 years, the claim of the Petitioner should not have been rejected
on the ground indicated in the impugned communication at Annexure-7.
9. Mr. A.P. Das, learned ASC on the other hand submitted that since the wife
of the deceased employee was very much available, the claim of the Petitioner
No. 1 being the 6th legal heir of the deceased employee is not entertainable
and accordingly no illegality has been committed by the O.P. No. 1 in
rejecting the same.
10. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. Perused the materials
available on record. This Court after going through the same finds that the
grounds on which the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected is not
sustainable in view of the reported decision of this Court as cited (supra). This
Court also finds that the application submitted by the Petitioner was not only
entertained, but also was duly processed and recommended to the O.P. No. 1
for appropriate action.
11. In view of such steps taken in the matter, the claim of the Petitioner
should not have been rejected. In any view of the matter, this Court finds that
the Petitioner's claim has been illegally rejected and accordingly this Court is
pleased to quash the said rejection available at Annexure-7 so far as it relates
to the Petitioner and consequential order at Annexure-6. While quashing the
same, this Court directs the O.P. No. 1 to take appropriate step in the matter
and take a fresh decision in accordance with the Rule prevalent at the time of
// 4 //
death of the deceased employee in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Malayananda Sethi Vs. State of Odisha. Such a fresh
decision shall be taken within a period of two (2) months from the date of
receipt of this order. If on such recommendation, the Petitioner is found
eligible, necessary order of appointment be issued within the above said time
period.
12. The writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and
direction.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 21st of October, 2022/Sneha
