[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha & Anr vs Sri Mahesh Chandra on 20 February, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. Nos.3159 of 2024
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Appellants
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. S.B. Panda, AGA
-versus-
Sri Mahesh Chandra .... Respondents
Mohanty & Anr Represented by Adv.-
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
20.02.2026
Order No.
08. This Intra-Court Appeal by the State seeks to lay a challenge to the
learned Single Judge's judgment dated 19.04.2023 passed in W.P.(C)
No.17288/2013 whereby the followed relief has been bestowed on the
Respondent-employee:
"For the foregoing reasons therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed.
The impugned order under Annexures-3, 4 and 6 are set aside. The
Opposite Party-authorities are directed to approve the appointment
of the Petitioner w.e.f. 12th June, 1992 and to confer all admissible
service benefits to him from such date as early as possible,
preferably within two months."
Learned AGA Mr. Panda vehemently argues that when the entry point
itself was not sufficiently vouched with the sanction of competent
authority, the length of service would pale into insignificance and that this
aspect of the matter having not been properly dealt with by the learned
Single Judge, there is errors apparent on the face of the impugned judgment
warranting interference of this Court. Per contra, learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent-employees draws our attention to the
vouchable fact that the employee gained entry way back on 13.05.1988
under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme; that was against the vacancy
in the post of Store Keeper because of demise of the incumbent then.
Therefore, he contends that the Appeal being unworthy of merits, is liable
to be rejected.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
appeal papers, we broadly agree with the reasoning of the learned Single
Judge as reflected in Paragraphs 7 & 10 of impugned order, which read as
under:
"7. The facts of the case as laid in the pleadings are not disputed.
As it appears, the Petitioner's father died in harness on 15th
April, 1988. He submitted application for consideration of his
case under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on 13th May, 1988.
Such application was forwarded to the Director for consideration,
but was returned by the Office of the Director with request to
place the same before the Governing Body for consideration with
further instructions to furnish the opinion of the Governing Body.
The Governing Body in its resolution dated 2nd January, 1989
resolved to appoint the Petitioner subject to approval of the
Director. The above fact was communicated to the Director by
letter dated 25th April, 1989. The Office of the Director intimated
that if the appointment of the Petitioner is against an approved
post, then proposal may be sent to the Directorate with copy of the
Governing Body Resolution. Accordingly, the Governing Body in
its Resolution dated 12th December, 1992 approved the
appointment of the Petitioner as Store-keeper. It has been brought
to the notice of this Court that in the meantime, the incumbent of
the post of Store-keeper had expired, which created a vacancy,
against which the Petitioner was appointed. From the documents
enclosed to the connected Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner, i.e.
O.J.C.No.1996/1997, it appear that after appointment of the
Petitioner by order dated 10th June, 1992 the Principal requested
the Director for approval thereof by his letters dated 10.9.1992,
29.10.1992, 16.1.1993, 11.2.1993, 26.3.1994 and 31.3.1995. No
action was taken by the Directorate for which the Petitioner had
approached this Court in OJC No.1996/1997. In the said Writ
Petition also the Government did not file any counter. The Writ
Petition was ultimately disposed of by order dated 15.2.2011
directing the Director to consider the proposal for approval of
appointment of the Petitioner pending with him since 1993. Even
then, the matter was kept pending for more than two and half
years and ultimately, by order dated 14th January, 2013, the
Directed instructed the Principal to issue appointment order in
favour of the Petitioner as Junior Clerk. Two things are apparent
from the narration. Firstly, no reason whatsoever has been cited
by the State for keeping the proposal for approval of the
appointment of the Petitioner pending for more than two decades.
Secondly, this Court having directed the Director to consider
approval of the appointment already made, it was not open to the
authorities to direct his fresh appointment. It has been argued by
learned State counsel that this implies that the proposal for
approval was turned down. This argument does not have any
substance for the reason that if such was the intention of the State
then what prompted it to confer the benefit of Rehabilitation
Assistance on the Petitioner and that too, 21 years after the death
of his father, If, according to the State the earlier appointment was
not in order, the same could have been brought to the notice of the
Management of Institution promptly without keeping it pending for
so long. That apart, the very objective of the Rehabilitation
Assistance Scheme is to provide immediate succor to the family of
a deceased Government Servant from distress. It is therefore,
quite fallacious and absurd to term the appointment of the
Petitioner made in 2013 as one under Rehabilitation Assistance
Scheme arising out of death of his father way back in the year
1988.
10. Since appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme
is meant to be an exception to the normal mode of recruitment, the
above quoted Rule specifically confers power on the authority to
make such appointment without following the prescribed
procedure for recruitment. It is not disputed that the Petitioner
was duly qualified and was appointed against an approved post.
The only thing wanting was, approval of such appointment by the
Director post facto. In this also, no blame can be attributed to the
Management of the College inasmuch as, several letters and
reminders, as referred to hereinbefore were issued, but no action
was taken thereon. After keeping the matter in limbo for long as
21 years, the State took a U-turn to question the sanctity of the
appointment made by the Governing Body and instead directed
issuance of a fresh appointment order purporting to be under the
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme."
In the above circumstances, this appeal being unworthy of merits is
liable to be rejected and accordingly it is. The Appellants to implement
order of the learned Single Judge within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks, if
not already implemented.
Costs made easy.
Registry to send a copy of this order to Respondents' counsel by
speed post immediately.
Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Prasant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO
