Orissa High Court
Basanta Kumar Lima 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.7037 of 2025
Basanta Kumar Lima ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Sadasiva Patra (1)
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Akshaya Pati, ASC
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:-
"In the above facts and circumstances, the
petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may
be graciously pleased to issue a writ/writs in the
nature of writ of certiorari quashing the letter
dtd.08.12.2021 under Annexure-5 so far relates to
rejection of the claim of the Petitioner for
appointment under R.A. Scheme after declaring the
same as illegal.
And further be pleased to issue a writ/writs in
the nature of writ of mandamus directing the
opposite parties to consider claim of the petitioner
for appointment under Orissa Civil Service
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 within a
stipulated time.
And further be pleased to pass any other
order/orders, direction/directions as deemed fit and
proper."
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
father of the Petitioner, who was working as a Peon in the office
of the Assistant Labour Officer, Rayagada, died in harness on
18.09.2017 leaving behind the present Petitioner and other legal
heirs. He further contended that the Petitioner being one of the
legal heirs, with the consent of other legal heirs, submitted an
application for appointment on compassionate ground under the
O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990 along with all required documents on
05.01.2018. He further contended that the Opposite Parties sat
over the matter and no decision was taken. Challenging such
inaction, the Petitioner has approached the Lokayukta, Odisha
by filing an application on 07.09.2021. While the matter was
pending before the learned Lokayukta, Odisha, the application of
the Petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated
08.12.2021 under Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Thereafter
the proceeding before the learned Lokayukta, Odisha was closed
vide order dated 02.03.2022.
5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, referring to the impugned rejection order dated
08.12.2021 under Annexure-5, contended that the application of
the Petitioner has been 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. In such view of the matter,
learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the application
of the Petitioner has been considered by applying the new rules,
which is not permissible in terms of 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). He further contended that in Biswajit
Swain's case (supra), this Court has declared the provision of
Rule-6(9) of the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 2020 to be ultra vires. He
also contended that although the State-Opposite Parties have
preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however,
no interim order has been passed. Therefore, the Opposite
Parties were under obligations to consider all pending
applications under the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990. On such
ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the
impugned rejection order under Annexure-5 be quashed with
further direction to the Opposite Parties to reconsider the case of
the Petitioner under the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
contended that the application of the Petitioner was considered
under the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 2020 in terms of the provisions
contained therein. Since the Petitioner was not found eligible,
his application has been rejected vide order dated 08.12.2021
under Annexure-5 to the writ petition by passing a speaking and
reasoned order. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for
the State contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed
any illegality in rejecting the application of the Petitioner. In
course of his argument, learned counsel for the State also
referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.
Santhosh v. State of Karnataka and Ors. Accordingly, it was
prayed that the writ petition of the Petitioner is devoid of merit
and, as such the same be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful analysis of their submissions,
further keeping in view the factual background of the present
case, this Court is of the view that there is no dispute with regard
to the date of death and the date on which the Petitioner
submitted his application. The dispute with regard to the
applicability of rule has already been resolved by this Court in
the judgments referred to hereinabove. In view of the aforesaid
settled position of law, the Opposite Parties should have
considered the case of the Petitioner under the provision of
O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990. In such view of the matter, this
Court has no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order dated
08.12.2021 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.2 to reconsider the case of the
Petitioner in terms of the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules 1990 keeping in
view the law laid down in the above noted judgments within a
period of three months from the date of communication of a
certified copy of this order by the Petitioner. Further, it is made
clear that the application of the Petitioner shall be considered
and disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The
final decision which is likely to be taken by the Opposite Party
No.2 be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days
thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
