Orissa High Court
Anil Sahu vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 2 April, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.2982 of 2025
Anil Sahu ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Asish Kumar Ray
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
02.04.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the
learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ
petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner
with a prayer to quash the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the
Opposite Party No.4-Chief District Medical & Public Health
Officer, Koraput under Annexure-9 to the writ petition.
Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the Opposite Party
No.4-Chief District Medical & Public Health Officer, Koraput to
issue appointment order in his favour with other consequential
benefits.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted
that the sister of the present Petitioner, who was a Government
servant, died in harness on 20.09.2011. After the death of the
Government Servant, the present Petitioner being the brother of
the deceased and the one taking care of the family, submitted an
application for appointment on compassionate ground to provide
support to the family of the deceased Government employee on
30.08.2012. Along with her application, the Petitioner had also
submitted the income certificate, legal heir certificate etc. as is
required for processing of his claim. The distress certificate was
issued by the competent authority on 02.11.2015.
5. While the matter stood thus, on 02.11.2015 the competent
authority rejected the application of the Petitioner applying the
O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 2020. Thereafter, the Petitioner
approached this Court by challenging the order dated
11.05.2022. This Court vide order dated 04.09.2023 passed in
W.P.(C) No.28593 of 2023 disposed of the writ petition at the
stage of admission by setting aside the impugned rejection order
with a further direction to the Opposite Party No.4, i.e. Chief
District Medical and Public Health Officer, Koraput, to
reconsider the application of the Petitioner by apply the O.C.S.
(R.A.) Rules, 1990 and in terms of the judgment referred to in
the order dated 04.09.2023.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, further
contended that the application of the Petitioner has once again
been rejected vide order dated on 13.08.2024 under Annexure-9.
By referring to the rejection order under Annexure-9, learned
counsel for the Petitioner contended that the application of the
Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the income of the
Petitioner is Rs.30,000/-, as has been indicated in the certificate
issued by the Tahasildar having jurisdiction over the area. He
further contended that under a misconception of law, the
Opposite Party No.4 has rejected the application of the
Petitioner. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to the Gazette
Notification dated 29th December, 2008, contended that the
G.A.&P.G. Department, Government of Odisha has amended
O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990. Accordingly, the ceiling of income
of the family which was earlier fixed at Rs.20,000/- has been
amended and the same has been re-fixed at Rs.72,000/-. Thus, it
was contended that the family is having less than Rs.72,000/-
annual income would be considered in a distressful condition
and, accordingly, their applications shall be considered for
appointment on compassionate ground. He further contended
that the observation of the competent authority in the rejection
order with regard to the dependents is also not based on any
sound material. It is also contended that the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of
Orissa and others, reported in 2022(II) OLR (SC)-1, has not
been understood and applied in its correct perspective. On such
ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
impugned rejection order is unsustainable in law and,
accordingly, the same should be quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
contended that after the matter was remanded by this Court vide
order dated 04.09.2023 in W.P.(C) No.28593 of 2023, the
Opposite Party No.4 has considered the case of the Petitioner
and the application of the Petitioner has been disposed of by
passing a speaking and reasoned order. He further contended
that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in
rejecting the application of the Petitioner on the ground as stated
in order dated 13.08.2024 under Annexure-9. In such view of
the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that the writ
petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be
dismissed.
8. On a close scrutiny of the impugned rejection order dated
13.08.2024 under Annexure-9, this Court observes that a
competent authority has considered the annual income of the
Petitioner's family to be Rs.30,000/-. Accordingly, by applying
the Rules-2(a)(iv) of O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990, the application
of the Petitioner has been rejected.
9. In contrast, this Court observes that the aforesaid rule has
been amended in the year 2008 by virtue of the Gazette
Notification dated 29th December, 2008 and the annual income
ceiling has been raised to Rs.72,000/-. Therefore, this Court is
of the considered view that the competent authority has not
taken note of the amended ceiling that has been prescribed by
the State Government. In such view of the matter, this Court is
of the view that the impugned rejection order dated 13.08.2024
under Anexue-9 is unsustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly,
the same is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded
back to the Opposite Party No.4 to consider the application of
the Petitioner as has been directed vide order dated 04.09.2023
passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.28593 of 2023 under
Annexure-8 within a period of eight weeks from the date of
communication of a copy of this order.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
