Allowed

Biraja Sankar Mahanta v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC30 Mar 2021WA/155/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ appeal, the High Court allowed the challenge to a single judge's order dismissing a petition for rehabilitation assistance. The court held that dismissal based on delay and age was improper as the administrative delay caused the lapse, and the case was wrongly considered under 2016 rules instead of 1990 rules.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; office order setting aside remitted to District Education Officer for reconsideration under 1990 Rules within three months.

Biraja Sankar Mahanta Vs State of Odisha — Public Procurement and Tenders | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

WA No.155 of 2021

¶2

¶3

Present: SHRI S. K. MISHRA, J AND

¶4

MISS SAVITRI RATHO, J

¶5

Biraja Sankar Mahanta �� Appellant. - VersusState of Odisha and Another �� Respondents.

¶6

For Appellant : Mr. Samarendra Patnaik

¶7

For Respondents : Mr. Nilambar Jena,

¶8

Standing Counsel for the (S. & M. E.)

¶9

03. 30.03.2021 This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the sole Appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department.

¶11

In this writ appeal, the appellant-petitioner assails the finding and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 15.01.2021 in W.P. (C) No.749 of 2021. The learned Single Judge held that a writ petition claiming rehabilitation assistance cannot be entertained after 13 years of death and as the petitioner has already attained to 39 years, it would be frustrated the scheme provided for rehabilitation assistance appointment.

¶12

In assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not disputed that the father of the petitioner died in harness in 2006. The petitioner filed an application for grant of rehabilitation assistance

¶13

¶14

to him in the year, 2009 but his application remained pending before the authorities for 11 years and finally on 03.12.2020 vide Office order No.14793 dated 03.12.2020, his application was rejected. Thereafter, he filed writ application before this Court. He came before the learned Single Judge on 08.01.2021. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rejection of his writ application only on the ground of delay from the date of death of his father and he having attained the age of 39 years is not proper as his application for rehabilitation assistance remained pending before the authorities for more than 11 years.

¶15

Another important consideration raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though his father died in the year 2006, his application should have dealt with Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, the authorities have communicated to him that his case was considered under the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule, 2016 which was erroneous and illegal. Learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department could not counter the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶16

In that view of the matter, we find merit in the writ appeal. We come to this conclusion that because of the fact that the petitioner’s action cannot be founded fault with and delay occurred as his application was finally disposed of on 02.12.02020 and he has approached the Court after one month i.e. 08.01.2021. So, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition of the petitioner should not have been dismissed for latches or delay on the part of the petitioner as the delay in disposal of the rehabilitation

¶17

¶18

assistance application lies with the opposite party-authority. The other consideration weighing in the mind of the learned Single Judge is that the petitioner has attained 39 years at the time of filing of the writ petition, but it is true that he has 39 years of age at the time of filing of the writ petition. However, 11 years passed such after he made his application and it is the authority, who sat over the matter who delayed disposal of the rehabilitation assistance application.

¶19

Furthermore, the application of the petitioner has been considered under the Rule framed in the year, 2016 referred to above. We are of the opinion that his case should be considered under the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990.

¶20

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge on 15.01.2021 in W.P. (C) No.749 of 2021 is hereby set aside. Furthermore, Annexure-6 of the writ petition i.e. Office order No.14793 dated 03.12.2020 of the District Education Officer, Keonjhar is hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to the District Education Officer, Keonjhar for reconsideration of the case according to Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule, 1990. His case should be considered immediately after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner and decision taken strictly in accordance with the merit of the case in true letter and spirit and the Rules Governing the field, within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

¶21

The writ appeal is disposed of.

¶22

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

¶23

¶24

A free copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Nilambar Jena, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department for early compliance.

¶25

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

¶26

��..��.. S.K.Mishra, J.

¶27

�� Savitri Ratho, J.

¶28

TUDU

Biraja Sankar Mahanta v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biraja Sankar Mahanta v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijaya Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Hiranya Barik Vs State of Odisha

Chitra Mahanand Vs Sangeeta Chhura

Mansuk Munda Vs State of Orissa

Krushna Chandra Pollai Vs State of Odisha

Uddhaba Bagarti Vs State of Odisha