Pradeep Kumar Sashu vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 12018 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                 W.P.(C) No.31545 of 2023

                 Pradeep Kumar Sashu                     ....             Petitioner
                                                           Mr. P.K. Sahoo, Advocate
                                              -versus-
                 State of Odisha and others              ....           Opp. Parties
                                                                Mr. P.C. Das, A.S.C.
                                          CORAM:

                             JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
                                         ORDER

Order No.                               05.10.2023
    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 in the Writ Petition.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer :

"In the aforesaid circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application and issue a RULE NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why this writ application shall not be allowed and if the opposite parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said Rule may be made absolute and on hearing the parties through their counsel, this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to:

i) Issue appropriate writ/writs holding that the impugned order No.853 dated 08.5.2023, issued by the Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-10 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of Indian and quash the said order and declare that the Rehabilitation Assistance Rules, 2020 has no application to the case of the petitioner.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to consider the case of the Petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Rules, 1990 and appoint him against any Group-C post.

// 2 //

iii) This Hon'ble Court further be pleased to pass such other appropriate direction/directions or order/orders as would be deem fit and proper in favour of the Petitioner in the interest of justice."

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner, Late Abhimanyu Sahu, who was working as Fitter Mistry in the office of the Executive Engineer, RWS&S Division, Bhadrak-Opposite Party No.4, died in harness on 19.11.2017. Thereafter, the Petitioner being the son of the deceased Government employee submitted application on 28.05.2018 along with all documents for compassionate 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 Opposite Party No.3 by the impugned office order dated 08.05.2023 under Annexure-

10. 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 and State of West Bengal-v.-Debabrata Tiwri passed in Civil Appeal No.8842 of 2022 decided on 3rd of March, 2023 reported in (2023 (3) SCALE-557 as well as in Suchitra Bal vs. State of Odisha & ors. by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 decided on 16.03.2023 as well as Bindusagar Samantaray vs. State of Odisha & ors. by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.810 of 2021 decided on 25.09.2023. Relying the aforesaid judgments, 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, 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.

// 3 //

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.

6. Considering the submissions made by the respective parties, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the application at the stage of admission by setting aside the impugned office order dated 08.05.2023 of Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-10 and further remand the matter back to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the application of the petitioner afresh in the light of the law laid down of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy and Debabrata Tiwari (supra) as well as in Suchitra Bal and Bindusagar Samantaray's case (supra) the petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Party No.3 along with certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. On appearance of the petitioner, Opposite party No.3 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.

7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

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

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Anil

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Oct-2023 10:15:27