Jagat Jiban Patra vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2025 Latest Caselaw 5109 Ori

Orissa High Court

Jagat Jiban Patra vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 19 March, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              WP(C) No.7514 of 2025
            Jagat Jiban Patra             .....       Petitioner
                                                                   Represented By Adv. -
                                                                   Jyotirmay Gupta

                                                -versus-
            1) State Of Odisha                             .....        Opposite Parties
            2) Director Of Agriculture And Food                     Represented By Adv. -
            Production, Odisha                                      Ms. B.K.Sahoo, A.G.A.
            3) Dy. Dirctor Of Agriculture,
            Balasore
            4) Collector And D.m, Mayurbhanj
            5) Dist. Agriculture Officer, Jaleswar

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

                                               ORDER

19.03.2025 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 Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

"The petitioner therefore humble prays that the Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this case, issue notice to opposite parties for show cause and after hearing both the sides may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari by directing the opposite parties particularly to O.P No.1 & 4 to provide Jon to the petitioner whose father died in the year 2009 in service, under the provision of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme 1990 as per Application Form vide Annexure-2, on the basis of order dated 29.09.2016 in O.A. No.3533 (C) of 2016

vide Anenxure-7 and letter or O.P. No.2 vide Annexure-8, as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in Civil Appeal No.4103 of 2022 (Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa & others) vide Annexure-9 with cost.

AND Further be pleased to direct the O.P. No.1 to finalise the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-10 within a stipulated period.

AND Further be pleased to pass any other order(s) or direction which this Hon'ble Court thinks fit and proper."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that father of the petitioner namely one late Madhab Chandra Patra, who was working as a peon in the Office of the District Agriculture Officer, Jaleswar in the district of Balasore died in harness on 15.11.2009 leaving behind is legal heirs including the present petitioner. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the legal heirs certificate issued by the Competent Authority i.e. Tahasildar under annexure-1 to the writ application. He further contended that after the death of the father of the present petitioner, the petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 05.04.2010. The application that was submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the Office of the Director, Opposite party No.2 on 04.03.2011. He further contended that the wife of the deceased government employee having a preferential right has filed an affidavit thereby proclaiming her right for such appointment on compassionate ground. A copy of the affidavit has also been filed under Annexure-4 to the writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that along with his application for appointment on compassionate ground the petitioner has submitted all the relevant documents of certificate that is required for consideration of the case for appointment on compassionate ground. However, no decision was taken by the

Opposite parties as such application of the petitioner. As a result of which the petitioner was compelled to approach the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.3533 (C) of 2016. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 29.09.2016 disposed of the O.A. by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order therein keeping in view the grievance of the petitioner made in the representation under Annexure-14, within a period of two months from the date of communication of such order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that after disposal of the abovenoted O.A, the petitioner again approach the Opposite Party No.2 to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The Opposite party No.2 vide letter dated 04.11.2016 under Annexure-8 disposed of the representation of the petitioner with the observation that the Govt. of Odisha in Agricultural Farmers Empowerment Department is the Competent Authority to take a decision on the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal was communicated to the Government by the Opposite Party No.2.

6. In course of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suchitra Bal vs. State of Odisha in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 decided on 27.06.2023 as well as Bindusagar Samantaray vs. State of Odisha and Ors. by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.810 of 2021 and in the case of Biswajit Swain vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021. Additionally, this Court would also like to refer 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 has categorically held that the law which was

prevailing at the time of death of the deceased government employee and at the date when the application was made for appointment on compassionate ground is applicable to the case of the applicant. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Opposite parties should have considered the case of the petitioner by applying the provisions of O.C.S. (RA) Rules, 1990, keeping in view the fact that the father of the petitioner died in harness in 2009. He further contended that since no decision was taken by the Opposite party No.1, despite letter dated 04.11.2016 by the Opposite party No.2 under Annexure-8 to the writ application, the petitioner was again compelled to submit a representation before the Opposite Party No.2 on 01.09.2024 under Annexure-10 to the writ application. However, due to inaction on the part of Opposite Party No.1, no final decision has been taken on such representation of the petitioner despite order dated 29.09.2016 passed in O.A. No.3533 (C) of 2016 by the learned O.A.T. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that application of the petitioner has not been placed before the competent authority for consideration in accordance with applicable rules. She further contended that the petitioner already approached the Opposite party No.2 by filing a representation and in the event no decision has been taken on such representation of the petitioner, she will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to take an appropriate decision on the representation of petitioner within a stipulated period of time.

8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels for the respective parties, on careful examination of the documents annexed

to the Writ Petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition in the light of the judgment referred to hereinabove by directing the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground along with the abovenoted judgments. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to approach the competent authority by filing a fresh representation along with relevant documents within a period of two weeks. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 shall do well to consider the same in the light of law laid down by this Court as well as Supreme Court as has been referred to hereinabove, within a period of three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of today's order. The Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 shall do well to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within the aforesaid stipulated time. Any final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.

9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

                                                                          ( A.K. Mohapatra )
                                                                                 Judge
              Rubi






Signed by: RUBI BEHERA                                                                       Page 5 of 5.

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 25-Mar-2025 10:39:44