Orissa High Court
Amiya Kumar Jena vs ) State Of Odisha on 4 February, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.3009 of 2025
Amiya Kumar Jena ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Prahallad Kumar
Sinha
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha, represented ..... Opposite Parties
through Additional Chief Secretary
to Government, Department of
Steel & Mines, Loka Seva Bhawan,
Bhubaneswar.
2) Managing Director, Represented By Adv. -
Odisha Mining Corporation Mr. Samresh Jena, ASC
Limited , OMC House,
Bhubaneswar, Khordha.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
04.02.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Party No.1.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the
following prayers:-
"In view of the facts stated above the
Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of
writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders, issue
appropriate order by quashing the impugned order
of rejection under annexure-8 issued by Opp. Party
No.2 with respect to appointment under
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in terms of the
OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 and declare the same as
illegal and bad in the eye of Law as the father of the
petitioner died on 15.06.2017 when OCS (RA) Rules,
1990 was governing in the field.
And the Hon'ble Court further be pleased to
direct the Opp. Parties to consider the case of the
petitioner for appointment against vacant post under
the rehabilitation assistance scheme in terms of
Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance)
Rules, 1990.
And further be pleased to issue/pass any other
order/orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper."
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that
the father of the Petitioner, who had initially joined as Security
Guard in the Opposite Party No.2-Odisha Mining Corporation
Limited in the year 1986, died in harness on 15.06.2017 while
he was working as a Government Servant under the D.E.O.,
Jajpur. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that
the Petitioner being one of the legal heirs with the consent of
other legal heirs submitted an application under the O.C.S.
(R.A.) Rules, 1990 as amended in the year 2016 on 02.01.2018.
He further contended that the said application was kept pending
for a long time and finally on 28.11.2019 the Petitioner was
directed to appear before the Deputy Manager (Personnel) of
Odisha Mining Corporation along with his documents for
verification. While the matter stood thus, the OCS (R.A.) Rules,
2020 was amended in the year 2020. Finally, the application of
the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was
rejected vide order dated 29.06.2021 under Annexure-8 to the
writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further referring to the
impugned rejection order dated 29.06.2021 under Annexure-8 to
the writ petition, submitted that the application of the Petitioner
for appointment on compassionate ground has erroneously
rejected by applying the OCS (R.A.) Rules, 2020. In the
aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred 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 and judgment of this Court 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). Referring to the aforesaid judgments, learned
counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the application
of the Petitioner should have been considered under the OCS
(R.A.) Rules, 1990 as has been held by this Court as well as the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further contended that the case of
similarly situated two other employees, namely, Binamra Parida
in W.P.(C) No.26022 of 2021 and Sanjeev Kumar Sahoo in
W.P.(C) No.28864 of 2021, the Opposite Parties pursuant to the
order passed by this Court have considered their cases and they
have given appointment under the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990.
On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that the impugned rejection order under Annexure-8 is
unsustainable in the eye of law.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
contended that the application of the Petitioner has already been
considered and the same has been rejected by the Opposite Party
No.2-Corporation by passing a reasoned order dated 29.06.2021.
He further submitted that the State has no role in the
management of Opposite Party No.2-Corporation and has
separate Board of Directors to manage the affairs of the
Corporation.
7. On a careful analysis of the submission made by the
learned counsel for the Petitioner and further taking note of the
background facts of the present case, this Court observes that
the facts remains undisputed that the father of the Petitioner died
in harness on 15.06.2017 and thereafter the Petitioner submitted
an application under the R.A. Scheme on 02.01.2018.
8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid undisputed facts,
this Court is of the view that the judgments referred to
hereinabove shall apply to the facts of the present case and,
accordingly, the application of the Petitioner under Annexue-3
should have been considered under the OCS (R.A.) Rules, 1990
as amended in the year 2016, as has been held by this Court as
well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in
setting aside the order dated 29.06.2021 under Annexure-8 to
the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside.
Further, the matter is remitted back to the Opposite Party No.2
to consider the matter afresh in terms of the judgment referred to
hereinabove and keeping in view the fact that some of the
employees, who stand in similar footing, have already been
regularized pursuant to the order passed by this Court. Let the
Petitioner approach before the Opposite Party No.2 along with a
copy of this order within two weeks from today. In such
eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to reconsider
the matter and dispose of the application of the Petitioner under
Annexue-3 by passing a speaking and reasoned order within
eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this
order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the
Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
10. Since the order has been passed in the absence of Opposite
Party No.2 on the basis of the admitted facts, liberty is given to
the Opposite Party No.2 to seek modification /variation of this
order in the event it is found that the Petitioner has suppressed
any material before this Court or in the event the Opposite Party
No.2 aggrieved by this order in any manner.
11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
