Orissa High Court
Amiya Kumar Jena vs State Of Odisha And Another ..... ... on 12 March, 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. -
Prahallad Kumar Sinha
-versus-
State Of Odisha and another ..... Opposite Parties
Smt. S. Nayak, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
12.03.2025
Order No.
02. I.A. No.2757 of 2024
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
3. Considering the submission made, the order dated 04.02.2025
passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3009 of 2025, is hereby recalled
and in its place the following order is passed.
4. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.
5. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Party No.1.
6. 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."
7. 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 working as Senior
Security Guard in the Regional Office, Jajpur Road under Odisha
Mining Corp. Ltd. 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.
8. 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 was 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, this Hon'ble Court passed appropriate orders on
31.08.2021 & 20.09.2021 as per Annexure-10 series of this writ
petition. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that the impugned rejection order under Annexure-8 is
unsustainable in the eye of law.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
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.
13. 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.
14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
is disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Page 5 of 5.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 17-Mar-2025 18:55:17
