Orissa High Court
Slatikanta Biswal vs This Matter Is Taken Up Through ... on 16 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.15466 of 2023
SLatikanta Biswal .... Petitioner
Mr.S.B.Jena, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opp.Parties
Mr.T.Patnaik, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 16.05.2023
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned
Additional Standing Counsel. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the
documents annexed thereto.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following
prayer :
"Under the abovementioned facts and
circumstances of the case, this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to quash the letter No.3885 dated
02.11.2020 under annexure-9.
And further be pleased to direct the Opp.Party No.1
to consider the case of the Petitioner as per Rehabilitation
Assistance Rule, 1990 and appoint the Petitioner in any
post as per his qualification.
Or pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem think fit and proper."
// 2 //
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
father of the Petitioner died in harness on 03.02.2010 while he was
working as Binder Grade-III leaving behind his legal heirs including
the Petitioner and his mother. Initially, the Petitioner approached the
authority for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.
However, since the mother of the Petitioner was alive, the authority
did not entertain his claim. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further
submitted that the mother of the Petitioner is unfit for any work. In
support of such contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner drawing
the attention of this Court to the letter of the CDMO dated
05.10.2013 under Annexue-5, submitted that the competent Medical
Authority has already issued a certificate since 2013 wherein he has
stated that the mother of the Petitioner is physically incapable to
perform day to day work and accordingly an unfit certificate was
granted in favour of the mother of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the
Petitioner again submitted an application for appointment under
OCS(RA) Rule, 1990. Vide it sorder the Opposite Party No.1
condoned the delay in submission of the application and the
application was accepted by the authority. However, vide order dated
19.11.2015 under Annexure-6 the claim of the Petitioner for
appointment under compassionate ground under OCS(RA) Rule,
1990 has been rejected on the ground that while the spouse of the
deceased was alive for appointment, the claim of the Petitioner is not
liable to be considered and accordingly the claim of the Petitioner
was rejected. Thereafter the Petitioner approached this Court by
filing W.P.(C) No. 8406 of 2020 which was disposed of on
08.05.2020 by a coordinate Bench directing Opposite Party No2 to
consider the case of the Petitioner within a period of two months.
Finally, the Petitioner in his letter dated 02.11.2020 under Annexure-
// 3 //
8 wherein it has been intimated that the case of the Petitioner has
again been rejected as it was found that he has secured 41 points as
against the requirement of 60 points upon evaluation in terms of G.A.
& P.G. Department Notification No.5651 dated 17.02.2020.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submitted
that the initial rejection order under Annexure-6 is illegal as by the
time the decision was taken the claim of the Petitioner was rejected
and the mother of the Petitioner has already declared unfit by the
competent medical authority i.e. C.D.M.O., Jagatsinghpur. However,
ignoring the aforesaid fact, the Director has rejected the
representation of the Petitioner. Thereafter, pursuant to the direction
of this Court in the earlier round of litigation again the application of
the Petitioner has been rejected considering the 2020 Rules. It is
further contended that since the father of the Petitioner died on
03.02.2010 the case of the Petitioner should have been considered as
expeditiously as possible keeping in view the distress condition of the
family and the documents placed before the authority including the
medical certificate indicating the unfitness of the mother of the
Petitioner. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner
referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Malaya Nanda Sethy-v.-State of Orissa and others reported in SLP
Civil No.936 of 2022 submitted that the application of the Petitioner
deserves to be considered under the OCS(RA) Rule, 1990 and not
under the OCS(RA) Rule, 2020 as has been done by the authority in
rejecting the claim of the Petitioner in the impugned order dated
02.11.2020 under Annexure-8.
6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand
submitted that the case of the Petitioner has been considered under
the prevailing Rule, therefore no fault can be found with the
// 4 //
authority. He further submitted that as the Petitioner failed to secure
required number of point the authority has rightly rejected the case of
the Petitioner. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State
raised the ground of delay in approaching the Court. He also
contends that the delay is almost five years and on such ground
learned counsel for the State submitted that the Writ Petition is
devoid of merit and the same should not have been entertained by
this Court.
7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the
respective parties and upon a careful examination of the background
facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the case of
the Petitioner should have been considered in the year 2015 itself and
when the claim of the Petitioner was rejected on 02.11.2020 as by
that time the certificate has been issued by the CDMO,
Jagatsinghpur. The authority ignoring such certificate under
Annexue-5 passed order under Annexure-6 rejecting the claim of the
Petitioner on the ground that the spouse of the deceased was
available for appointment. No-doubt, the Petitioner has approached
this Court after a gap of five years, however, on perusal of the
impugned rejection order under Annexure-8 does not reveal that the
application has been rejected on the ground of limitation, rather the
same has been rejected on the ground that the Petitioner has failed to
secure required number of points under the 2020 Rules. Upon a
careful consideration of the facts, this Court is of the considered view
that the case of the Petitioner deserves to be considered in the light
of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra) and the fact of the present case are
identical to the fact of the case i.e. involved in the case of Malaya
Nanda Sethi. In such view of the matter, the impugned order under
// 5 //
Annexure-8 dated 02.11.2020 is hereby quashed. The matter is
remanded to Opposite Party No.2-Director, Printing Stationary and
Publication, Odisha. The Petitioner is permitted to approach the
Opposite Party No.2 along with certified copy of this order. In the
event the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.2, the
Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the case of the
Petitioner in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethi (supra) and take a decision
within a period of two months from the date of approach of the
Petitioner. 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.
RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra, )
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH
Designation: Ex-A.R.-cum-Sr. Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIgh Court of Orissa
Date: 21-May-2023 09:01:04
