Orissa High Court
Uma Sankar Behera vs ) State Of Odisha on 31 January, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.2419 of 2025
Uma Sankar Behera ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Durgesh Narayan
Rath
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha, represented ..... Opposite Parties
through its Commissioner-cum-
Secretary, Panchayati Raj &
Drinking Water Department,
Bhubaneswar
2) Engineer-in-Chief, RWSS Represented By Adv. -
Division, Bhubaneswar. Mr. Akshaya Pati, ASC
3) Superintending Engineer,
R.W.S. & S. Division,
Bhanjanagar, Ganjam.
4) Executive Engineer, R.W.S. &
S. Division, Bhanjanagar,
Ganjam
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
31.01.2025
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 Parties. Perused the writ petition
as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner
with the following prayers:-
"Under the above circumstance, it is therefore
humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of
writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order by quashing the order dated
30.12.2023 passed by the opposite party no.4 under
Annexure-10 to the writ petition, so far as it relates
to the petitioner.
And this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to
direct the opposite parties, more particularly the
opposite parties 3 and 4 to issue appointment order
to the petitioner under the Rehabilitation Assistance
Scheme, as per the rule that was in force at the time
of death of the deceased government employee, i.e.
Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance)
Rules, 1990, as amended in the year 2016, in
Group-D post, in terms of the ratio decided in the
case of Malaya Nanda Sethi (supra) within a
stipulated period.
And this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any
further order/ orders, direction/directions as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended
that the father of the present Petitioner was working as a Fitter-
Mistry under Opposite Party No.4. While working as such, the
father of the Petitioner died in harness on 12.04.2017. Upon
receiving a copy of the legal heir certificate and with the consent
of other legal heirs, the present Petitioner had applied for
appointment on compassionate ground under the Rehabilitation
Assistance Scheme, 1990 on 07.04.2018. He further contended
that the aforesaid application submitted by him, dated
07.04.2018, was kept pending whereas the applications of
similarly situated other persons were processed and they have
been given appointment on compassionate ground.
5. While the matter stood thus, in the year 2020, the
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme 1990 was amended by the
Amendment Rules, 2020. He further contended that in view of
the amendment rules, the Petitioner was asked to apply again,
however, the Petitioner without realizing the consequences of
the new rules and on the request of the Opposite Parties made a
fresh application which was evaluated by the authorities in terms
of the new rules, 2020 and, accordingly, the application of the
Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dated
30.12.2023 under Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, submitted that the
impugned order dated 30.12.2023 under Annexure-10 clearly
reveals that the application of the Petitioner was considered and
evaluated under the 2020 Rules and since the Petitioner could
not secure the desired number of marks, his application was
rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, further
contended that the law in this regard has been well settled by this
Court in a catena of judgments. In course of his argument,
learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bindusagar
Samantaray v. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.A. No.810 of 2021
decided on 25.09.2023). He also referred to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy v.
State of Orissa and others, reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that in
Biswajit Swain v. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.5214
of 2021 disposed of on 31.10.2023), this Court had declared the
relevant provision of the 2020 Rules, which requires similar
applications to be considered under the new rules, to be ultra
vires. He also contended that although the State has preferred
appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, no interim
order has been passed.
7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed
the prayer in the writ petition on the ground that the Opposite
Parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the
application of the Petitioner as it was found that the Petitioner
has failed to secure the desired number of marks under the 2020
Rules. He further submitted that in view of the 2020 Rules, all
pending applications are required to be considered under the new
rules and the mechanism provided therein. Accordingly, the
application of the Petitioner was processed and, since he was
found not eligible, his application has been rightly rejected. On
such grounds, learned counsel for the State submitted that the
present writ petition does not call for any interference by this
Court, at this stage.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful examination of their
submissions as well as the materials on record, this Court
observes that there is no dispute with regard to the date of death
of the deceased employee, i.e. on 12.04.2017. It is also not
disputed that the Petitioner had initially submitted an application
on 07.04.2018, however, the same was kept pending.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual background, this
Court is of the view that the case of the Petitioner is covered by
the principle laid down by this Court in the above noted
judgments. In such view of the matter, this Court has no
hesitation in setting aside the impugned order dated 30.12.2023
under Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is
hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the
Opposite Party No.4 to consider the application of the Petitioner
for appointment on compassionate grounds, keeping in view the
law laid down in the above noted judgments, and dispose of the
grievance of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned
order within ten weeks from the date the Petitioner approaches
the Opposite Party No.4 along with a certified copy of this order.
The final decision which is likely to be taken by the Opposite
Party No.4 be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks
thereafter.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Debasis
