Orissa High Court
Abinash Sahu vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 5 December, 2023
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.38739 of 2023
Abinash Sahu .... Petitioner
Mr.Ramdas Acharya, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. S.Das, A.G.A.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 05.12.2023
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. Perused the
writ petition as well as documents annexed to thereto.
4. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a
prayer to quash the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 under Annexure-5
and for a direction to Opposite Party No.3 to issue appointment order
in favour of the Petitioner.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the father
of the Petitioner late Sudam Charan Sahu, while working as a cook at
CHC Jaipatna, Dist-Kalahandi and while he was working as a Ward
Attendant under the Burla Medical Hospital, died in harness on
19.06.2015 leaving behind his legal heirs. Thereafter, after the death of
his father, the Petitioner applied for appointment under OCS(RA) Rule,
1990. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the authorities by
the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 under Annexure-5. In this
context, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment
// 2 //
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, State of West Bengal-v.-Debabrata Tiwri reported in
(2023 (3) SCALE-557,Suchitra Bal v. State of Odisha and others in
W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 & batch decided on 27.06.2023 and State
of Odisha and others vs. Bindu Sagar Samantaray in W.A.No.810
of 2021. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the application of the petitioner needs to
be reconsidered in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as this Court.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
State, on the other hand, submits that during the pendency of the
application submitted by the petitioner for appointment under
rehabilitation assistance scheme, a new rule was enacted in the year
2020. Therefore, the authorities, by referring to the new rules, have
rejected the application of the petitioner. 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 with law within a
stipulated period of time.
7. Considering the submissions made by the respective parties,
this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage
of admission by setting aside the impugned order dated 04.05.2023
under Annexure-5 and further remand the matter back to the Chief
District Medical Officer, Nuapada, Dist- Nuapada, to reconsider the
application of the petitioner afresh in the light of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy,
Debabrata Tiwari, Suchitra Bal and Bindu Sagar Samabantaray
(supra) and the petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Party
No.3 along with certified copy of this order within a period of two
// 3 //
weeks from today. On appearance of the petitioner, the authority
shall do well to consider the case of the petitioner and dispose of the
matter by passing a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with
law 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.
8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is
disposed of.
9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
