Orissa High Court
Sanjib Kumar Dwibedi vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 12 March, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.22152 of 2024
Sanjib Kumar Dwibedi ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Sameer Kumar Das
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Cdm And Pho, Mayurbhanj Represented By Adv. -
3) Medical Officer In Carge, Khunta Ms.Siva Mohanty,ASC
Chc
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
12.03.2025
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 quash the letter dated
30.07.2024 of the Opp.Party No.2 under Annexure-5
and for a direction to the Opp.Party No.3 to appoint
the Petitioner under Rehabilitation assistance
Scheme on the basis of the OCS(Rehabilitation
assistance) Rules, 1990, which was in vogue at the
time of death of his father instead of the new rule, as
his case is squarely covered by the ratio decided by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malayananda
Sethy vs. State of Odisha, reported in 2022(II) OLR
page-1 and to grant him all consequential service
and financial benefits within a stipulation period and
deem fit and proper;
And/or pass any other appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders and direction/directions in the fitness
of the case."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended
that the father of the present Petitioner was working as Attendant
in Khunta C.H.C., Khunta under Opposite Party No.3. While
working as such, the father of the Petitioner died in harness on
28.11.2018. 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 18.02.2019. He
further contended that the aforesaid application submitted by
him, dated 18.02.2019, 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
30.07.2024 under Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, submitted that the
impugned order dated 30.07.2024 under Annexure-5 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 28.11.2018. It is also not
disputed that the Petitioner had initially submitted an application
on 18.07.2019, 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 30.07.2024
under Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is
hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the
Opposite Party No.2to 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.2 along with a certified copy of this order.
The final decision which is likely to be taken by the Opposite
Party No.2 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)
Judge
RKS
Location: High Court of Orissa
