Orissa High Court
Umeshgopal vs ) State Of Odisha Represented By ..... ... on 28 January, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.1646 of 2025
UmeshGopal ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Anil Kumar Das
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha represented by ..... Opposite Parties
the Secretary to Government,
Water Resources Deptt., Rajiv
Bhawan, Bhubaneswar.
2) Engineer-in-Chief(Water Represented By Adv. -
Resources), Odisha, Bhubaneswar. Smt. SasmitaNayak, ASC
3) Chief Engineer, Upper Indravati
Irrigation Project, Khatiguda,
Nabarangur.
4) Chief Construction Engineer,
Upper Indravati Project,
Mukhiguda, Kalahandi.
5) Superintending Engineer, Upper
Indravati Right Canal Circle,
Mukhiguda, Kalahandi.
6) Executive Engineer, Upper
Indravati Left Canal Division -II,
Dharamgarh, Kalahandi.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
28.01.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition interalia
with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships
may be pleased to quash the impugned order of
rejection dt. 11.08.2023 by the O.P. No.4 under
Anx.17 and direct the State/O.Ps. to consider the
case of the Petitioner by holding a Special Screening
Committee for appointment of the petitioner under
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme as per provisions
of OCS (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990
which was prevalent at the time of death of the
father of the petitioner in view of the settled
principle of law by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Canara Bank and Another Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar
reported in (2015) 7 SCC, 412 which has been
followed by our own High Court in a number of
similar cases and further direct the State/O.Ps to
issue appointment to the petitioner in a Class-IV
post within a stipulated period as fixed by this
Hon'ble Court.
And pass any other order/orders as deemed fit
and proper in the ends of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended
that the decision taken vide Annexure-17 be quashed so far as it
relates to the Petitioner as the claim of the Petitioner has not
been considered as per the rules prevailing at the time of death
of the deceased employee.
5. Learned State Counsel does not dispute the position.
6. Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for
the Petitioner and after going through the records, the rejection
of the Petitioner's claim vide the impugned decision under
Annexure-17 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to O.P.
No.4 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioner in the
light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa and others, reported in
2022(II) OLR(SC)-1; as well as the judgments of this Court in
Suchitra Bal 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),
within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this
order. Any decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner
within two weeks thereafter.
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
