Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Sunita Barik And Another on 12 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 1518 of 2024
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
Mr. Bimbisar Dash, Additional Government Advocate
-versus-
Sunita Barik and another .... Respondents
Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 12.11.2024
I.A. No.3850 of 2024
04. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. This application has been filed by the appellants-State of
Odisha seeking condonation of delay of 555 days in preferring the
present intra-court appeal.
3. Upon notice, Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, learned counsel has appeared
for the respondents by filing his Vakalatnama.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, we are of the
opinion that a case is made out for condoning the aforesaid delay.
5. Accordingly, the delay of 555 days in filing the writ appeal
stands condoned. The I.A. stands disposed of.
6. The State of Odisha has put to challenge an order dated
21.10.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC
(OAC) No.671 of 2017, operative portion of which reads as under:
"11. In view of such steps taken in the matter, the
claim of the Petitioner should not have been rejected.
In view of the matter, this Court finds that the
Petitioner's claim has been illegally rejected and
accordingly this Court is pleased to quash the said
rejection available at Annexure-7 so far as it relates
to the Petitioner and consequential order 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 shall be taken within a
period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of
this order. If on such recommendation, the Petitioner
is found eligible, necessary order of appointment be
issued within the above said time period."
7. It is apparent from the impugned judgment/order that the
appellants have been directed to consider the respondents' case for
appointment on compassionate ground, taking into account the
Rules prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee in
view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Malayananda Sethi v. State of Odisha: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684.
8. In view of the submissions advanced at the Bar, we make it
clear that in this case, the dispute over applicability of the Orissa
Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (in short 'the
1990 Rules') and the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation
Assistance) Rules, 2020 (in short 'the 2020 Rules') does not arise,
since it appears to be an admitted case that the respondents' father
died when the 1990 Rules were in force and the application for
rehabilitation appointment was also made and rejected before
coming into force of the 2020 Rules. The said question is left open
for being decided in an appropriate case.
9. In view of the above discussion, we do not consider it necessary
to interfere with the impugned order.
10. We accordingly dispose of the writ appeal with the aforesaid
observation.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)
Chief Justice
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
S. Behera
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 18-Nov-2024 12:29:40
