Orissa High Court
Sri Dev Prakash Ray vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 6 August, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC(OA) No.1982 of 2019
In the matter of an application under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985.
..................
Sri Dev Prakash Ray .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : M/s. S. Sahoo, (Advocate)
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. Jena,
Additional Govt. Advocate
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 06.08.2024 and Date of Judgment:06.08.2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical)
Mode.
2. Heard Ms. S. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Jena,
learned AGA appearing for the Opp. Parties.
3. The present writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
// 2 //
"1. Quash the order of rejection under Anx-11 in respect of the
applicant and direct the Respondents / Govt. to give
appointment to the applicant in a Class-III (Group-C) post
under R.A Scheme with all service & financial benefits".
4. It is submitted that on the death of the Petitioner's father on 16.01.2008,
who was working as a Khalasi under Executive Engineer, Prachi Division,
Bhubaneswar, Petitioner's mother made her application for appointment
under the provision of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. It is submitted that
since prior to consideration of the claim, Petitioner's mother died on
17.08.2011, Petitioner being the unmarried daughter of the deceased
employee made a fresh application after attaining majority.
4.1. It is further submitted that when the claim of the Petitioner was kept
pending, she approached learned Tribunal in O.A. No. No. 3571(C) of 2012
and learned Tribunal vide its order under Annexure-5 disposed the matter
with a direction to consider the claim of the Petitioner.
4.2. It is submitted that though everything was complied with, but O.P. No. 1
without proper appreciation rejected the claim vide the impugned order
dtd.13.07.2016 under Annexure-6 on the ground that the spouse of the
deceased employee since was alive at the time of death of the deceased
employee, Petitioner's claim cannot be considered for appointment under
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.
4.3. It is submitted that the grounds on which the claim of the Petitioner was
rejected is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court reported in
the case of Ajit Kumar Barik Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (2018 (II) OLR P-
10).
4.4. It is submitted that in the said reported decision it has been held that
"Family Members" as defined under Rules 2(b) of the OCS (R.A.) Rules,
1990 are eligible to make their application and there is no hard and first rule
// 3 //
that only wife/husband of the deceased Govt. employee is eligible to make
such application. It is also submitted that since the Petitioner complied with
all the requirements, the claim of the Petitioner should not have been rejected
on the ground indicated in the impugned communication at Annexure-6.
5. Mr. S. Jena, learned AGA on the other hand submitted that since the wife
of the deceased employee was very much available, the claim of the Petitioner
No. 1 being the 2nd legal heir of the deceased employee is not entertainable
and accordingly no illegality has been committed by the O.P. No. 1 in
rejecting the same.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. Perused the materials
available on record. This Court after going through the same finds that the
grounds on which the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected is not
sustainable in view of the reported decision of this Court as cited (supra). This
Court also finds that the Petitioner made a fresh application, when during
pendency of the claim originally made by the spouse, she died on 17.08.2011.
Petitioner not only made the application on attaining the age of 18 years, but
also learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 3571(C) of 2012 directed O.P. No. 1 to take
a decision.
6.1. In view of such steps taken in the matter, claim of the Petitioner should
not have been rejected on the grounds indicated in the impugned order. In any
view of the matter, this Court finds that the Petitioner's claim has been
illegally rejected and accordingly this Court is inclined to quash the said
rejection available at Annexure-6. While quashing the same, this Court directs
the O.P. No. 1 to take appropriate step in the matter and take a fresh decision
in accordance with the Rule prevalent at the time of death of the deceased
employee in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Malayananda Sethi Vs. State of Odisha. Such a fresh decision be taken
// 4 //
within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. If on
such reconsideration, Petitioner is found eligible, necessary order of
appointment be issued within the above said time period.
7. The writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and
direction.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 6th August, 2024/Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
