Orissa High Court
Krushna Khasla @ Khosla vs ) State Of Orissa ..... Opposite Parties on 4 February, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.2331 of 2025
Krushna Khasla @ Khosla ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Alok Kumar Mohapatra
-versus-
1) State Of Orissa ..... Opposite Parties
2) Engineer-in-chief,water Resources Represented By Adv. -
Dept.,bbsr Mr.Akhaya Pati, ASC
3) Chief Construction Engineer,
Upper Kolab Project, Koraput
4) Executive Engineer, Telengiri
Canal Div., Koraput
Mr.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 Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite
Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents
annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with
the following prayer:
"" Under these circumstances, the Petitioner
most humbly prays that the Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to issue the Rule NISI calling
upon the Opp.Parties to show cause as to why
i) The direction of O.P.No.2 to O.P.No.3 on dated
22.11.2017 under Annexure-4 shall not be
quashed.
ii) The proceedings at Serial No.13 on dated
01.12.2018 under Annexure-5 shall not be
quashed.
iii) The second R.A. application forwarded by the
Authority under Annexure-6 series shall not be
declared as void."."
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that
the father of the Petitioner, namely Jaganath Khosla, died in
harness on 06.10.2012 while working as Government servant.
Thereafter, the Petitioner being one of the legal heirs, with the
consent of other legal heirs, submitted an application for
appointment on compassionate ground under the O.C.S.
(CCA) Rule, 1990 on 05.02.2013 before the Opposite Party
no.3. The Opposite Party no.3 submitted the proposal for
appointment of the Petitioner under the O.C.S.(R.A.) Rule,
1990 vide order dated 22.11.2017 along with a check list
before the Opposite Party no.2. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner at this juncture, referring to the proceeding of the
Enquiry Committee of R.A. Scheme of Office of the Chief
Construction Engineer, Upper Kolab Project, Bariniput held on
01.12.2018 under Annexure-5, submitted that the case of the
Petitioner was considered by the Internal Committee of R.A.
Scheme and his name finds place at Sl.no.13.
5. On perusal of the proceeding of the Internal Committee,
it is revealed that the father of the Petitioner, who was working
as a Khalasi has died on 06.10.2012. Thereafter, the Petitioner
submitted an application for appointment under R.A. scheme
on 05.12.2013 which is within the period of limitation. The
minutes of the proceeding further reveals that the applicant is
eligible for appointment under Rule 9(6) of the said rules and
he has secured 51 marks. Accordingly, the Internal Committee
has suggested for consideration of the case of the present
Petitioner. At the end of the minutes of the proceeding under
the heading "recommendation" it has been mentioned that the
Petitioner may be considered against vacancy lists of the post
which was submitted for disposal of the applications under the
R.A.Scheme against 10% of the total vacancy of the year both
in the post of Clerk and Group D service and he may be
absorbed from the merit list.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in course of his
argument referred to letter dated 22.11.2017 under Annexure-
4 and contended before this Court that the application of the
Petitioner for appointment under compassionate ground was
forwarded by the Director, Personnel of the Office of the
Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources, Odisha. In the said letter,
it has been recommended that the case of the Petitioner be
considered in terms of the Notification dated 05.11.2016 as per
the G.A. Department clarification dated 26.07.2017. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner further drawing the attention of this
court to the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa
and others : reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1, Suchitra Bal v.
State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 &
batch decided on 27.06.2023 and State of Odisha and
others vs. Bindu Sagar Samantaray in W.A.No.810 of 2021.
Biswajit Swain v. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C)
No.5214 of 2021 decided on 31.10.2023, contended that since
the father of the Petitioner died in the year 2012 and the
application was made within one year, therefore, the case of
the Petitioner should have been considered under the old
O.C.S.(RA) Rules,1990 which existed prior to the amendment
of the same in the year 2016 and the new Rules of the year
2020. However, the Opposite Parties have not considered the
case of the Petitioner in terms of the aforesaid reference.
Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the
Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ
Petition.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Standing Counsel
contended that on perusal of the Writ Petition, it appears that
the Petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite
Parties in considering his application for appointment on
compassionate ground. In such background, learned
Additional Standing Counsel submitted that in the event this
Court directs the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the
Petitioner in accordance with law and in terms of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malayananda Sethy's Case
(supra), within a stipulated period of time, then he will have no
objection to the same.
8. At this juncture, this Court would like to record that the
issue of compassionate appointment was before a Division
bench in the case of State of Odisha and others vs. Bindu
Sagar Samantaray in W.A.No.810 of 2021 and before the
Single Bench in the case of Biswajit Swain v. State of
Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 decided on
31.10.2023. In both the cases, this Court has held that if the
death occurred prior to the date on which the New Rules came
into force, then such application shall be considered under the
Old Rules. Although the decision of this Court has been
challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the State,
however no interim order has been obtained in the said matter.
Therefore, as things stand, the judgment of this Court is still in
force.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, on a
careful examination of their submissions, further keeping in
view the background facts of the present case, this Court is of
the considered view that the case of the Petitioner should have
been considered under the OCS(RA) Rule, 1990 keeping in
view the date of death of the Government employee in
harness and the date of his application, this Court deems it
proper to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission
by directing the Opposite Party No.4 to consider the case of
the Petitioner in accordance with law, keeping in view the
judgment referred to hereinabove and dispose of the grievance
of the Petitioner within a period of three months from the date
of communication of certified copy of this order. It is further
made clear that the grievance of the Petitioner shall be
disposed of by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The
final decision so passed by Opposite Party No.4 be
communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application
stands disposed of.
10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
RKS Judge
Location: High Court of Orissa
