Ramesh Oram vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4916 Ori

Orissa High Court

Ramesh Oram 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.7042 of 2025

            Ramesh Oram                            .....                     Petitioner
                                                               Represented By Adv. -
                                                               Mr.Debasnan Das

                                            -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 view of the above facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and after hearing the parties quash/set-aside the order passed by opposite party No.3 (The Chief Construction Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Angul) vide No. 1265 dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure-8) and issue a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate

writ directing the opposite party No.3 or any other opposite parties to re-decide the application of petitioner for his appointment on Compassionate Ground in Group-D post within a stipulated period of time as per Odisha Civil Services Rehabilitation Assistance Rules-1990 relying upon the judgment of Malayananda Sethi Vrs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2022(11) OLR (SC)-l, State of Odisha and others Vrs. Bindusagar Samantaray in W.A. No.810 of 2021, Biswajit Swain Vrs. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021) and Suchitra Bal Vrs. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021);

And may pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper for bonafide interest of justice."

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 Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Sundargarh, died in harness on 10.01.2018 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 before the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Rourkela within the stipulated time period. He further contended that the Opposite Party No.5- Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Rourkela, after receiving the application of the Petitioner communicated it to his higher authorities for taking a decision regarding the appointment of the Petitioner in Group-D post under

compassionate ground. The Opposite Party No.2-The Engineer- in-Chief, Rural Works Division, Bhubaneswar after receiving the application of the Petitioner, vide letter No.1144 dated 30.05.2019, along with all enclosed documents vide letter No.14011 dated 17.07.2020 directed the Superintending Engineer, Northern Rural Works Circle, Angul to decide the case of the Petitioner as per provision of OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 issued by G.A. & P.G. Department Notification dated 7.02.2020. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that in pursuance of the said letter of Engineer-in-Chief of Rural Works Division vide Annexure-7 of the writ petition, the Opposite Party No.3-the Chief Construction Engineer, Rural Works Division, Angul, vide order dated 30.04.2024 under Annexure-8 decided the case of the Petitioner for his appointment in Group- D post applying the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Rule, 2020 and declared him as ineligible for his appointment as he has secured below 44 points of that Rule.

5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner, referring to the impugned rejection order dated 30.04.2024 under Annexure-8, 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 SuchitraBal 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 to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 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-8 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 30.04.2024 under Annexure-8 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 30.04.2024 under Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.3 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.3 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