Orissa High Court
Debashish Jena vs State Of Odisha And Others on 10 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.10558 of 2023
Debashish Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. B.K. Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. N.K. Praharaj, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 10.04.2023
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well
as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition and the
documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner
with a prayer to quash the order dated 08.09.2022 passed by the
Superintendent of Police, Khordha under Annexure-7 with a
further prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to provide him an
employment as per Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation
Assistance) Rules, 1990.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that
the father of the Petitioner, namely, Mahendranath Jena, who
was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Khordha Police
Station, died in harness on 28.02.2009. Thereafter, the Petitioner
being the legal heir of his deceased father submitted an
// 2 //
application before the Opposite Party No.4-Superintendent of
Police, Khordha for appointment under the Rehabilitation
Assistance Scheme Rules, 1990 within stipulated time.
Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted by the Collector and
District Magistrate regarding distress condition of the family of
the deceased Government servant and the mother of the
Petitioner, namely, Smt. Rashmita Jena was also sent for
medical examination. The Standing Medical Board, who
examined the mother of the Petitioner, declared that she was
unfit for Govt. Job. Subsequently, a committee for appointment
under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme was formed on
06.09.2017 and after due scrutiny, the committee recommended
seven names including the name of the Petitioner to the Opposite
Party No.3-The Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Odisha,
Cuttack for taking necessary action. The Opposite Party No.3 in
his turn directed the Petitioner to appear before him on
14.12.2018 for scrutiny of his application applied under the
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme and, accordingly, the
Petitioner appeared at the Headquarters of Odisha Police on the
date and time fixed. But, the Opposite Party No.3 again issued a
letter vide Memo No.595/CR dated 31.01.2019 requesting the
Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack to provide information regarding
monthly income from all sources of all family members and the
present market value of movable and immovable property of the
family members from the competent authority. While the matter
stood thus, the Opposite Party No.4-Superintendent of Police,
Khordha vide his letter dated 25.06.2020 directed the Petitioner
// 3 //
to submit his willingness for appointment under the
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme as against Group-D post and
further to apply in the prescribed form to consider his case for
appointment as against Group-D post. Opposite Party No.4-
Superintendent of Police, Khordha vide his letter No.1519 dated
08.09.2022 under Annexure-7 informed the Petitioner that after
calculation of points allotted, he was found ineligible for
appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme as per
Rule-6(2-b) of OCS (RA) Rules, 2020. In this context, learned
counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy
vrs. State of Orissa and others, reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1.
Relying the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submits that the application of the Petitioner needs to
be considered in the light of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for
the State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, submits that during
the pendency of the application submitted by the Petitioner for
appointment on compassionate ground, a new rule was enacted
in the year 2020. Therefore, the authorities, by referring to the
new rules, have rejected the application to the Petitioner.
However, he does not dispute on passing the impugned order
and the authorities have not considered the law laid down in the
case of the Malaya Nanda Sethy(supra). He further submits that
he has no objection, if a direction is given to the authorities to
consider the grievance petition of the Petitioner in accordance
// 4 //
with law within a stipulated period of time.
6. Considering the submissions made by the respective
parties, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ
application at the stage of admission by setting aside the
impugned order dated 08.09.2022 under Annexure-7 and further
the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.4-
Superintendent of Police, Khordha to consider the application of
the Petitioner afresh keeping in view the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy
(supra) as well as the letter dated 30.12.2017 under Annexure-4
subject to the compliance vide letter dated 31.01.2019 under
Annexure-5 and the Petitioner is directed to approach the
Opposite Party No.4 along with authenticated/certified copy of
this order within a period of two weeks from today. On
appearance of the Petitioner, Opposite party No.4 shall do well
to consider the case of the Petitioner and dispose of the matter
by passing a speaking and reasoned order in the light of the law
laid down in Malaya Nanda Sethy's case (supra) within a period
of two months. Any decision so taken on the same shall be
communicated to the Petitioner within a period of ten days
thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition
is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
