Orissa High Court
Haresh Chandra Samal vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 8 November, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No. 29012 of 2020
Haresh Chandra Samal ..... Petitioner
Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.P. Das, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
08.11.2024
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel
appearing for the Opp. Parties.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the
following prayer:-
"It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for the records and
after hearing both the parties pass the following reliefs;
i. To quash the order dd.25.6.2020 under Annexure-13.
ii. To quash the order dtd.6.3.2020 under Annexure-14
iii. To quash the order dtd.19.5.2020 under Annexure-15
iv. To direct the Opp. Parties No.1 to 3 to modify the order of
engagement of the petitioner under Annexure-9 from Group D to
Group -C in any of the vacancies available in the aided Schools
in the district of Jajpur.
v. To direct the Opposite Parties to extend similar benefits as
has been done in respect of the other candidates under
Annexure-11.
And pass such other order/orders as may be deemed
fit and proper for the interest of justice.
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty
bound shall ever pray."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that on the death of
the deceased employee, Petitioner being the legal heir made his
application to get the benefit of appointment under the provisions of
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.
4.1. It is contended that taking into account the qualification
possessed by the Petitioner, Petitioner was eligible for his
appointment as against a Group-C post. But when Petitioner was
appointed as against a Group-D post, the matter was assailed before
this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6519 of 2016. This Court vide order
dtd.22.04.2019 while disposing the writ petition directed for
consideration of the Petitioner's claim to get the benefit of
appointment as against a Group-C post in the light of the Judgment
passed in the case of Dipti Ranjan Mishra Vs. State of Odisha &
Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 21648 of 2015).
4.2. It is contended that without proper appreciation of the direction
contained in order dtd.22.04.2019 and the ratio decided in the case
of Dipti Ranjan Mishra, claim of the Petitioner was rejected by
Opp. Party No. 3 vide order dtd.25.06.2020 under Annexure-13.
4.3. It is contended that such an order was passed by Opp. Party No.
3 under Annexure-13 basing on the order passed by the Govt. on
06.03.2020 vide Annexure-14 and by Opp. Party No. 2 vide his
order dtd.19.05.2020 under Annexure-15. It is contended that since
Petitioner was having the requisite qualification to get an
appointment as against a Group-C post and this Court accordingly
directed for its consideration in W.P.(C) No. 6519 of 2016, the
ground on which claim of the Petitioner was rejected by Opp. Party
No. 3 vide order dtd.25.06.2020 under Annexure-13 basing on the
direction issued by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 vide order
dtd.06.03.2020 under Annexure-14 and by Opp. Party No. 2 vide
his order dtd.19.05.2020 under Annexure-15 are not sustainable in
the eye of law. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order
so passed under Annexure-13 basing on Annexure-14 & 15 are not
sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court.
5. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand
contended that taking into account the vacancy available at the
relevant point of time, Petitioner was appointed as against a Group-
D post vide order of appointment issued on 23.11.2015 under
Annexure-9. In terms of the said order Petitioner not only joined but
also he never raised any objection for his appointment as against a
Group-D post. After accepting the benefit of order dtd.23.11.2015
Petitioner made an application under Annexure-10 for his
appointment as against a Group-C post.
5.1. Even though this Court directed for consideration of the
Petitioner's claim to get the benefit of appointment as against a
Group-C post in W.P.(C) No. 6519 of 2016, but since there is no
such provision under the provisions of OCS (R.A.) Rules, 1990, to
consider similar nature of claim and Petitioner since accepted the
benefit of order of appointment so issued on 23.11.2015 under
Annexure-9 without any objection, claim of the Petitioner after
being considered has been duly rejected by Opp. Party No. 3 vide
order dtd.25.06.2020 under Annexure-13 basing on the order passed
by Opp. Party No. 1 on 06.03.2020 under Annexure-14 and by Opp.
Party No. 2 on 19.05.2020 under Annexure-15.
5.2. It is also contended that benefit of Rehabilitation Assistance is
a beneficial legislation and benefit of appointment is being given to
the legal heirs of the deceased employee without facing any
recruitment process. Such appointees have got no vested right to
claim any particular group of post. In order to help the family to
come out of the distress condition due to sudden death of the
employee, benefit of appointment was provided in favour of the
Petitioner vide order dtd.23.11.2015 under Annexure-9. It is
accordingly contended that claim of the Petitioner has been rightly
rejected.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that on the death
of the Govt. employee on 07.08.1993, Petitioner when made his
application to get the benefit of appointment under Rehabilitation
Assistance Scheme, he was so appointed vide order dtd.23.11.2015
under Annexure-9 as against a Group-D post. After accepting the
offer of appointment so issued under Annexure-9 Petitioner raised a
claim for his appointment as against a Group-C post vide
Annexure-10. The said claim of the Petitioner when was not
considered, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.
6519 of 2016 and this Court vide order dtd.22.04.2019 while
disposing the writ petition, directed for consideration of the
Petitioner's claim in the light of the Judgment passed in the case of
Dipti Ranjan Mishra as cited (supra).
6.1. As the said claim was rejected vide the impugned order
dtd.25.06.2020 under Annexure-13, this Court after going through
order dtd.25.06.2020 finds that at the relevant time because of
unavailability of vacancy as against Group-C post, Petitioner was
appointed as against a Group-D post. Petitioner without having any
objection also accepted the offer of appointment and joined in the
post.
6.2. Since benefit of appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance
Scheme is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis, this
Court finds that Opp. Party No. 3 after due appreciation of the
provisions contained under OCS (R.A.) Rules, 1990 and the
decision governing the field has rightly rejected the Petitioner's
claim to get the benefit of appointment as against a Group-C post
vide the impugned order dtd.25.06.2020 under Annexure-13.
7. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order and dismiss the writ petition.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
