Rajesh Kumar Mallick vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4914 Ori

Orissa High Court

Rajesh Kumar Mallick vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 12 March, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                 WP(C) No.14612 of 2024

            Rajesh Kumar Mallick                   .....                Petitioner
                                                           Represented By Adv. -
                                                           Mr. Suvendu Kumar Ray

                                          -versus-
            State Of Odisha and others            .....          Opposite Parties
                                                           Represented By Adv. -

                                                           Mr. M.R. Patra, ASC

                                 CORAM:
            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

                                          ORDER

12.03.2025 Order No.

02. 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:-

"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'bie Court would be graciously pleased to :

A) Admit this writ application. B) Issue a rule of NISI asking the opp.

parties to show cause as to why order dated 09.05.2024 passed by Opp. Party No.2, Director of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services Odisha, Cuttack under Annexure-9

shall not be quashed directing opp. party no.2 to issue appointment letter in favour of petitioner as junior clerk on compassionate ground on death of his father, (deceased government servant) under prevalent O.C.S.(RA)Rules,1990 within a short stipulated time, and if the opp. parties did not file any show cause or show insufficient cause, then rule of law be made absolute thereby issuing a writ of mandamus directing the opp. parties to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner as junior clerk from the date of application dated 12.02.2019 at the earliest in the interest of justice C) And/Or pass an appropriate order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble court deemed think fit & proper.

D) For cost."

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the father of the Petitioner, namely, Subash Chandra Mallick, who was working as Chief District Veterinary Officer, Jharsuguda, died in harness on 17.06.2018 leaving behind his legal heirs including the present Petitioner. After obtaining a copy of the death certificate, the Petitioner submitted the application for appointment on compassionate ground under the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990 on 12.02.2019. Thereafter, such application was forwarded by the Opposite Party No.3 to the office of the Opposite Party No.2 along with all relevant documents for consideration of the Petitioner's case by the office of the Opposite Party No.2. While the matter was

pending, O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990 was repealed and new rule, namely O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 2020 came into force w.e.f. 17.02.2020 by virtue of G.A. & P.G. Department Notification dated 17.02.2020. Since no action was taken on the application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, the mother of the Petitioner ventilated the grievance of the Petitioner before the authority with a prayer to issue appointment letter in favour of the Petitioner, as the entire family is suffering financial distressful condition.

5. While the matter stood thus, the Petitioner received a letter from Senior Administrative Officer, Directorate of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Service, Odisha, Cuttack on 20.07.2023 with a request to submit a proper application in terms of the G.A. & P.G. Department Notification dated 17.02.2020. Thereafter, the mother of the Petitioner again submitted a representation indicating therein that the Petitioner has already submitted a representation on 13.02.2019 under the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990. Since no action was taken on the application of the Petitioner, the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.5021 of 2024. The said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 11.03.2024 with a direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the pending application of the Petitioner filed on

13.02.2019 under the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990 as amended in the year 2016 within a period of two months. A copy of such order was communicated to the Opposite Party No.2 on 14.05.2024. Finally, vide order dated 09.05.2024 under Annexure-9, the Opposite Party No.2 has rejected the application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. The impugned order reveals that the application of the Petitioner was considered under the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 2020 and in terms of the G.A. & P.G. Department Notification dated 17.02.2020.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, submitted that the conduct of the Opposite Parties in considering the application of the Petitioner under the 2020 Rules is a direct violation of this Court's order dated 11.03.2024 passed in the earlier writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.5021 of 2024. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, further referring 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 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), contended that

all pending applications are to be considered under the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990 as has been held in the above noted judgments. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Opposite Parties have committed gross illegality in rejecting the application of the Petitioner. In addition to flouting the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the State, on instruction vide letter dated 07.02.2025, contended that State Government is reviewing the entire Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, 2020 and its perspective applicability to related matters. The same is now under consideration of the G.A. & P.G. Department, Government of Odisha. Further, the instruction reveals that the State Government is working out the modalities and the financial implications involved in bringing about the necessary amendments. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State prayed for some more time to take a final decision in the matter.

8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the factual background in the present case, further keeping in view the order passed in the earlier writ petition as well as the settled position of law in the judgments referred to above, this Court is of the view that the impugned rejection order dated 09.05.2024 under

Annexure-9 is unsustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the matter afresh in terms of the judgment referred to hereinabove as well as the direction given by this Court in the earlier writ petition within a period of three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioner. Any decision taken in this matter be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.

9. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition stands disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

Debasis