Umesh Kumar Das vs Director Of Employment
2023 Latest Caselaw 12211 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                 W.P.(C) No.32409 of 2023

                 Umesh Kumar Das                          ....              Petitioner
                                                            Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate
                                          -versus-
                 Director of Employment, Odisha &         ....           Opp. Parties
                 another
                                                               Mr. T. Pattnaik, A.S.C.
                                          CORAM:

                             JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
                                         ORDER

Order No.                               09.10.2023
    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 Standing Counsel 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 a prayer to quash the office order dated 19.10.2022 under Annexure-6 and to reconsider the application of the Petitioner for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme under the OCS(R.A.) Rules, 1990.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner, Late Purusottam Das, who joined in service on 01.03.1982 as a Class-IV employee, in the office of the District Employment Officer, Balasore. While he was working, died in harness on 10.09.2016. Thereafter, the Petitioner being the son of the deceased Government employee submitted application on 02.08.2017 along with all documents for compassionate appointment under OCS (RA) Rule, 1990 before the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the District Employment Officer, Balasore. However, the Opposite Party No.2 forwarded the // 2 //

same to the Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Director of Employment, Odisha. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the Opposite Party No.1 by the impugned office order dated 19.10.2022 under Annexure-6. 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 Tiwari 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 Standing Counsel 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. 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 Opposite Party No.1 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 19.10.2022 of Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-6 and further remand the matter back to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the // 3 //

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). However, the petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Party No.1 along with certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. On appearance of the petitioner, Opposite party No.1 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: 13-Oct-2023 17:45:01