Orissa High Court
Soumya Ranjan Pani vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 7 April, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.6453 of 2025
Soumya Ranjan Pani ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Debadatta Mohanty
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
07.04.2025
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as 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 with the following
prayers:-
"Under these facts and circumstances, the
Petitioner most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to admit this writ
application, issue Rule Nisi in the nature of appropriate
writ/writs, direction/directions, calling upon the
Opposite Party- Authorities to show cause as to why the
letter dated 19.12.2022 under Annexure-9 shall not be
declared as illegal, arbitrary and void and also direct
the Opposite Party- Authorities to take into
consideration the candidature of the Petitioner and to
appoint the Petitioner under Odisha Civil Service
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 as amended in
2016 as earliest as possible and if the Opposite Parties
Authorities fail to show cause and/or show insufficient
cause, make the said Rule absolute, in the interest of
justice.
And further be pleased to pass any other
order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
father of the Petitioner, who was working as a Fireman in the
Marshaghai Fire Station, died in harness on 07.06.2017 leaving behind
his legal heirs including the present Petitioner. He further contended
that the Petitioner with the consent of other legal heirs applied for
appointment on compassionate ground by submitting an application
under the O.C.S. (RA) Rules, 1990 along with all required documents.
He further contended that the mother of the Petitioner, who has a
preferential right over all legal heirs, has submitted the candidature of
the present Petitioner vide her application dated 22.04.2018.
Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.3 sought for the medical
examination report of the mother of the present Petitioner. The
standing Medical Board examined the matter of the Petitioner on
03.12.2018 and the certificate has been issued under the signature of
concerned C.D.M.O. to the Opposite Party No.3 stating therein that the
mother of the present Petitioner is unfit for any job. While this was
the position, the Opposite Parties sat over the matter for several years.
Finally, the Petitioner received a letter from the Opposite Party No.3
dated 30.06.202 with a request to submit a fresh application under the
O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 2020. Finally, vide order dated 19.12.2022, the
application of the Petitioner has been rejected by the Opposite Party
No.3 and a copy of such rejection order has been annexed to the writ
petition as Annexure-9. Being aggrieved by such rejection order, the
Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in course of his argument,
referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malaya
Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa and others, reported in 2022(II) OLR
(SC)-1; as well as judgments of this Court in SuchitraBal v. State of
Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 decided on 16.03.2023); in
Bindusagar Samantaray v. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.A. No.810 of
2021 decided on 25.09.2023); and in Biswajit Swain v. State of
Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 disposed of on
31.10.2023), contended that in view of the settled position of law, the
rule that was in force at the time of death of the Government employee
is applicable so far the claim of the legal heirs of the Government
employees is concerned. By referring to the aforesaid settled legal
position, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Opposite
Parties have committed a gross illegality by rejecting the application of
the Petitioner under the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 2020.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that
the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the
application of the Petitioner inasmuch as the case of the Petitioner was
duly considered and it is found that he has not secured the required
marks for his appointment on compassionate ground. On such ground,
learned counsel for the State submitted that the present writ petition is
devoid of merit and, as such, the same should be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties and on a careful examination of the documents annexed to the
writ petition, further keeping in view the factual background of the
present case and the case of the deceased Government employee, this
Court is of the considered view that the application of the Petitioner
should have been considered under the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990 as
has been held in the above referred judgments of this Court as well as
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in
coming to a conclusion that the rejection of the Petitioner's application
vide order dated 19.12.2022 under Annexure-9 is unsustainable in the
eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order dated
19.12.2022 under Annexure-9 is hereby quashed. Further, the matter
is remanded back to the Opposite Parties to consider the matter afresh
in terms of the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990 within a period of three
months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this
order.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is
disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
