Ranjan Kumar Gouda vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 336 Ori

Orissa High Court

Ranjan Kumar Gouda vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 8 May, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             WP(C) No.24466 of 2024
            Ranjan Kumar Gouda            .....      Petitioner
                                                             Represented By Adv. -
                                                             Krishna Chandra Sahu

                                             -versus-
            State Of Odisha & Ors.                  .....         Opposite Parties
                                                             Represented By Adv. -
                                                             U.C. Jena, A.S.C.

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

                                          ORDER

08.05.2025 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr.K.C.Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as Mr.U.C.Jena, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing 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 Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash impugned order dtd. 29.07.2024 under Annexure-22 with further directing the Opp. parties for providing appointment in favour of the petitioner under the R.A. Scheme as per the then prevailing existing provisions/ rules i.e. OCS (RA) Rules 1990 on the date of death of the father of the petitioner keeping in view of the above settled position of law as well as the decision of this Hon'ble Court under Annexure-21 within a time bound period for the interest of justice.

And may further be pleased to pass any other order(s), direction(s) as deems fit & proper for the

bona fide interest of justice."

4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that being aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 29.07.2024 under Annexure-22, which was communicated to the Petitioner whereby the Petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the father of the Petitioner, who was working as a Khalasi under the Opposite Party No.6, died in harness on 11.04.2016 leaving behind his legal heirs including the present Petitioner. After the death of the father of the Petitioner, the Petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 09.11.2016 along with requisite documents. He further contended that initially the application of the Petitioner was rejected by the Opposite Parties on 21.10.2020. Being aggrieved by such conduct, the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.11292 of 2021. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.12.2023 disposed of the above noted writ petition with a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the direction issued in Roshan Kerketta's case by quashing the impugned order of rejection dtd.21.10.2020 under Annexure-21.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that after disposal of the previous writ petition, the Petitioner again approached the Opposite Parties. However, the application of the Petitioner was again rejected vide order dated 29.07.2024 by applying the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 2020. Again, being aggrieved

by the rejection order dated 29.07.2024, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing this W.P.(C) No.24466 of 2024.

7. On perusal of the impugned rejection order under Annexure-22 to the writ petition, it is observed that the Opposite Party authority has again rejected the application of the Petitioner under the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 2020 and while rejecting such application, the Opposite Party No.2 has categorically held that the claim of the Petitioner for appointment under the R.A. Scheme as per the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990 cannot be considered by violating the existing policy of the Government. Being aggrieved by such decision of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the Petitioner.

9. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order of rejection under Annexure-22, this Court is of the view that although a detailed reasoned rejection has been passed by the Opposite Parties, however a sum and substance of such counter affidavit is that the Petitioner's case is covered under the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 2020 in view of certain judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has been referred to in the order of rejection. On such ground, learned counsel for the State submitted that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the Petitioner by virtue of the impugned rejection order under Annexure-22 to the writ petition.

10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the factual

background of the present writ petition, further on a close scrutiny of the pleadings of the respective parties as well as the documents annexed thereto, this Court observes that the factual aspect of the matter is not disputed by either side. Further, it is also not disputed that the father of the Petitioner, while working as a Khalasi under the Opposite Party No.6, died in harness on 11.04.2016 and thereafter the Petitioner submitted his application for appointment on compassionate ground on 09.11.2016. Therefore, there is no doubt that the death of the deceased Government employee had occurred and the application for appointment on compassionate ground was submitted prior to the date when the 2020 Rules came into force.

11. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the State Government has in the meantime amended the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 2020 by virtue of the Notification dated 04.04.2025 of the G.A. & P.G. Department. On a careful scrutiny of the Notification dated 04.04.2025 of the G.A.&P.G. Department, it appears that all the deaths of the Government employees as well as the applications for compassionate appointment filed prior to the date when the 2020 Rules came into force shall be considered under the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990. In such view of the matter, there is no dispute with regard to the applicability of the rule to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, this Court holds that the application of the Petitioner is to be considered by applying the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990. Accordingly, it is also held that the impugned rejection order under Annexure-22 dated 29.07.2024 communicated to the Petitioner is unsustainable in law and, accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the

Opposite Party No.2 to reconsider the case of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground strictly by applying the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990 and in terms of the Notification dated 04.04.2025 of the G.A.&P.G. Department, Government of Odisha, within three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.

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

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Anil

Designation: Junior Stenographer

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-May-2025 11:03:41