Orissa High Court
Nilamani Bhoi vs State Of Odisha And Others on 19 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.10464 of 2023
Nilamani Bhoi .... Petitioner
Mr.B.S.Rayaguru, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr.Saswat Das, A.G.A.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 19.04.2023
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr.Rayaguru, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well
as Mr.Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate.
Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following
prayer:
"In view of the above mentioned facts and
circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ Petition
and issue a Rule NISI calling upon the Opp.Parties to show
cause as to why:
i) The order dated 21.01.2023 under Annexure-17 issued
by the Opp.Party No.1 shall not be quashed, as the same
has been issued without application of mind as well as
contrary to the order dated 03.11.2022 passed by this
Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.16277 of 2022,
ii) The Opp.Parties shall not be directed to issue
appointment order in favour of the Petitioner under
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme,
iii) The action of the Opp.Parties in not considering the
// 2 //
case/prayer of the Petitioner for appointment under RA
scheme shall not be declared as illegal, arbitrary and
contrary to the settled position of law."
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
father of the Petitioner namely, Krushna Chandra Bhoi died on
12.09.2011 in harness while he was working as a Peon in
Government regular establishment i.e. under Opposite party No.3.
On 04.05.2012, the Petitioner submitted an application under
OCS(RA) Rules, 1990 for appointment under compassionate ground.
Thereafter, the application was kept pending before the authorities
without considering the same expeditiously. Although letters were
issued from time to time to the Petitioner for compliance, which
was attended to by the Petitioner satisfying all the requirements that
was informed to the Petitioner by the authorities. Finally, the matter
reached this Court in shape of W.P.(C) No.29398 of 2021 which was
disposed of vide order dated 07.10.2021 directing the Opposite Party
No.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner within a period
of three months. Pursuant to the said order, the Petitioner submitted a
representation on 24.12.2021. The Opposite Party No.1 vide order
dated 28.03.2022 rejected the said representation which compelled
the Petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.16277 of
2022.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, a coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.11.2022 disposed of the
Writ Petition with the following direction.
"xxxx
13. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of
Ajit Kumar Barik vs. State of Odisha & others, this Court is of
the view that without proper appreciation of the said decision,
the Petitioner's claim has been rejected vide order at
Annexure-13. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the
// 3 //
said order under Annexure-13 and while quashing the same,
directs Opp.Party no.1 to take a fresh decision on the claim of
the Petitioner, taking into account the recommendation made
under Annexure-4 to the writ petition and in the light of the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Malayananda Sethi Vs.State of Odisha as well the decision of
this Court rendered in W.P.(C) No.26372 of 2022 and batch
This Court directs Opp.Party no.1 to complete the entire
exercise within a period of one month from the date of receipt
of this order."
6. After disposal of the above noted Writ Petition bearing
W.P.(C) No.16277 of 2022 the Petitioner again approached the
Opposite Party No.1 by filing a fresh representation on 15.12.2022.
The Opposite Party No.1 vide order dated 21.01.2023 rejected the
representation of the Petitioner. On perusal of the impugned order
dated 21.01.2023 under Annexure-17, this Court is of the considered
view that the Opposite Party no.1 has proceeded on his way without
adhering to the direction given by this Court. The Opposite Party
no.1 has not even bothered to discuss the judgment in Malayananda
Sethi's case as directed by this Court in the above noted Writ
Petition and the ordering portion as quoted hereinabove. Further, on
perusal of the impugned rejection order dated 21.01.2023, it appears
that the Opposite Party No.1 has acted in a manner as he is the
appellate authority to the order passed by this Court. Such conduct of
Opposite Party No.1 is evident from the order itself where he has
referred to the judgment of N.C.Santosh-vs.-Sttae of Karnataka
and others (2020) 7 SSC) 617 to overcome the order passed by this
Court directing him to reconsider the matter in the manner as has
been directed in Paragraph-13 of the said order. On a perusal of the
order passed by Opposite Party No.1, this Court is of the view that
the disposal of the representation by the Opposite Party no.1 vide
impugned order dated 21.01.2023 is not in accordance with the
// 4 //
direction issued by this Court in Paragraph-13 of the order dated
03.11.2022.
7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court has no hesitation
in setting aside the impugned order dated 21.012023 under
Annexure-17. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite
party No.1 to consider the matter afresh strictly in accordance with
the direction given by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2022 in
W.P.(C) No.16277 of 2022 within a period of eight weeks from the
date of communication of the order. The decision so taken be
communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the Writ Petition
stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
RKS
