Sani Naik vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 8474 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                                 W.P.(C) No.24446 of 2023

                 Sani Naik                             ....            Petitioner

                                                   Mr. B.K. Mohanty, Advocate
                                            -versus-
                 State of Odisha and others           ....         Opp. Parties

                                                     Mr. N.K. Praharaj, A.G.A.
                                        CORAM:

                             JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
                                         ORDER

Order No.                               03.08.2023
    01.     1.      This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
            /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto.

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"It is therefore most humbly prayed that, under the above circumstances your Lordships shall be graciously pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the petitioner will not be appointed in any suitable post under RA Scheme and if the Opposite parties fail to file show cause or file insufficient cause on perusal of causes shown make the said Rule absolute and further be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Opp. Parties to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post under RA // 2 //

Scheme within a stipulated period.

And/or pass such other order/orders, writ/writs, direction/directions as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case:"

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in course of argument, submits that the father of the petitioner, namely, Late Bangu Naik, who was working as a Sweeper in the office of the Opposite Party No.4, died in harness on 13.12.2010 leaving behind his legal heirs including the petitioner. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Rules with the consent of other legal heirs under OCS (R.A.) Rules, 1990 and the same was kept pending by the authorities unnecessarily.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the application of the petitioner is still pending although many persons appointed in the aforesaid rules by the Opposite Parties. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner initial scrutiny of the application, name of the petitioner has been recommended to the Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dated 18.06.2019 under Annexure-7, however, no decision has been taken by the Opposite Party No1 in the meantime and challenging such inaction, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that he has no instruction what has happened on the recommendation vide letter dated 18.06.2019 under Annexure-7. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that let the petitioner be approached to the Opposite Party No.1 along with certified copy of this order and he has no objection, this Court // 3 //

direct the Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the recommendation strictly in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels for the respective parties, on a careful consideration the submissions made by the parties and further on a careful examination of the background facts of the case and taking into consideration the death of the father of the petitioner and further also taking into consideration the fact that the application made for appointment under rehabilitation Assistance Scheme kept pending for a long period indefinitely and final decision has not been taken on the recommendation, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission directing the petitioner to approach to the Secretary, H & UD Department, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.1 along with certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. In the event the petitioner approaches to the Opposite Party No.1 within the aforesaid time, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the grievance of the petitioner by taking into consideration the recommendation dated 18.06.2019 under Annexure-7 keeping in view the judgment of 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 as well as State of West Bengal vrs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others. Etc. Etc., reported in (2023) (3) SCALE 557. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner as has been directed hereinabove and take a decision within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. Any decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks // 4 //

thereafter.

8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Jagabandhu

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Secretary-in-Charge Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 04-Aug-2023 19:11:24