Manoja Kumar Mallick vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2025 Latest Caselaw 286 Ori

Orissa High Court

Manoja Kumar Mallick vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 7 May, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             WP(C) No.12565 of 2025
            Manoja Kumar Mallick          .....     Petitioner
                                                                  Represented By Adv. -
                                                                  Bibhuti Bhusan Swain

                                               -versus-
            1) State Of Odisha                            .....        Opposite Parties
            2) The Engineer In Chief, Water                        Represented By Adv. -
            Resources, Odisha                                      Ms. S.Nayak, A.S.C.
            3) The Chief Engineer, Li And Ls
            Project, Khariar
            4) The Superintending Engineer,
            Lower Indra Irrigation Circle, Khariar
            5) The Executive Engineer, Lower
            Indra Dam Division, Nuapada

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

                                                     ORDER

Order No.                                            07.05.2025


    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 documents annexed thereto.

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"Therefore, the petitioner most humbly prays that this

Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the 0pp. Parties to show cause as to why :

i) the 0pp. Parties shall not be directed to give appointment to the petitioner under the OCS(RA) Rules, 1990 and amended rule of OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 published vide notification dated 4th April, 2025 under Annexure-6;

ii) the impugned Order No.FE-III-Policy-0001/ 2015/8553/WR, BBSR, dated 08.04.2016 under Annexure-5 so far as rejecting the case of the petitioner shall not be quashed;

And if the opposite parties fail to show-cause or show insufficient cause the Rule shall be made absolute;

And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as may be deemed just and proper."

4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner namely one Bhaktabandhu Mallick died in harness while he was working as Senior Clerk in the Office of the Executive Engineer Lower Indra Circle, Khariar on 28.05.2012. Thereafter, on 23.08.2012 the petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground on O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990. The Collector, Kendrapara conducted an inquiry on such application of the petitioner through the Tahasildar. Accordingly, distress certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioner on 21.01.2013. While the matter stood thus, the Engineer in Chief forwarded the application of the petitioner along with a requisite documents through the Chief Engineer, L.I. & L.S. Project, Khariar on 12.02.2014.

5. While this was the position, the Executive Engineer asked

the petitioner to furnish a reason as to why the brother of the petitioner did not apply for appointment under the R.A. scheme. Finally, the Engineer in Chief recommended the case of the petitioner to the government enclosing all documents for his appointment under the R.A. scheme. Finally, vide letter dated 08.04.2016 under Annexure-5 to the writ application, the application of the petitioner along with 170 other candidates were rejected on the grounds mentioned in the said letter. On perusal of a copy of the letter dated 08.04.2016 it appears that the application of the petitioner along with many other candidates have been rejected on some vague and untenable grounds. It is evident that the grounds taken by the Opposite Parties to reject the application of the petitioner are not available under the Rules to reject the application of the petitioner and similarly situated candidates. Being aggrieved by such decision of the Opposite Parties, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. In course of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner further referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others, reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1 and State of West Bengal -v.- Debabrata Tiwri, reported in 2023 (3) SCALE-557 as well as the judgments by a Division Bench of this Court in Suchitra Bal v. State of Odisha & Ors (W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 decided on 16.03.2023) and in Bindusagar Samantaray v. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.A. No.810 of 2021 decided on 25.09.2023, Biswajit Swain vs. State of Odisha and others in

W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 decided on 31.10.2023 as well as the notification of GA & PG Department dated 04.04.2025 submitted that the law has been amended in the meantime and the GA & PG Department passed a resolution amending Rule 6(9) of the O.C.S. (RA) Rules, 2020 to the effect that all pending applications prior to 2020 wherein the deceased Government employee has died before the new rule came in force are to be considered under the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the opposite parties have committed illegality by not considering the case of the petitioner in terms of the O.C.S.(R.A.) Rules, 1990 and rejecting the application on the grounds which are not available in the Rules for rejection of the petitioner's application.

6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that though she does not have any specific instruction in the matter, however considering the pleadings made in the writ application it appears that the application of the petitioner has already been rejected vide order dated 08.04.2016. She further submitted that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner by virtue of order under Annexure-5.

7. Learned counsel for the State further raised a plea that although the rejection order is of the year 2016 however the same is challenged after 7 years by filing the present writ

application. On such ground learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ application is devoid of merits and accordingly the same should be dismissed.

8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as documents annexed to the present writ application, this Court observed that by virtue of impugned letter dated 08.04.2016 under Anneuxre-5, the prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. On further scrutiny of the impugned letter dated 08.04.2016 it is observed that the Opposite Parties while rejecting the application of the petitioner has taken a ground that the R.A. application has been submitted by the sons/daughters when the spouse is alive and the medical certificates declaring the spouse medially unfit have been obtained after submissions of the application. On careful analysis of the grounds taken by the Opposite Parties while rejecting the application, this Court is of the view that the same are not a ground available to the Opposite Parties to reject the application of the petitioner under the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990. Therefore, the grounds taken by the Opposite Parties appears to be vague. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation, in setting aside the impugned order dated 08.04.2016 under Annexure-5 and the same is hereby quashed. Further the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the application of the petitioner afresh keeping in

view the O.C.S.(R.A.) Rules, 1990 as well as the resolution of G.A. & P.G. Department dated 04.04.2025 within a period of three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of today's order. In the event the Petitioner's case shall be redressed by passing a speaking and reasoned order strictly in terms of the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990. The final decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

( A.K. Mohapatra)

Judge Rubi