Allowed

Subhrajit Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC24 Jun 2021WP(C)/12032/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule, 2020 was inapplicable to the petitioner's case as the deceased's death and application predating the rule's enforcement. The rejection order relying on the new rule was quashed, with the authority directed to consider the case under the 1990 rules.

What did the court decide?

The impugned rejection order was set aside and the respondent directed to consider the petitioner's case under the 1990 rules.

Subhrajit Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) No. 12032 of 2021

¶2

24.06.2021

¶3

This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for Petitioner and learned State Counsel for the Opposite Parties.

¶5

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the opposite party no.3 under Annexure-8 and further seeks direction to the opposite parties to declare Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule, 2020 as ultra vires for the applicant/petitioner, i.e. legal heir of deceased employee who has applied for compassionate appointment under Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule, 1990 and prior to the new Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule, 2020.

¶6

Looking to the date of death of the deceased involving whom appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme is sought and the date of application for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, this Court finds, the order of rejection vide Annexure-8 applying the provision in the 2020 Rule, which has even not seen the light of the day either on the date of death or on the date of submission of application for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, remains contrary to the decision of this Court in disposal of W.P.(C) No.10168 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No.8486 of 2021 and also the judgment of the Hon’ble

¶7

apex Court in the case of Canara Bank and another Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar with two other matters reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412. This Court, therefore, interfering with the order vide Annexure-8 sets aside the same and directs the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in terms of the provision at Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 with the amended Rules, 2016.

¶8

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of one & half months from the date of communication of authenticated/certified copy of this order by the Petitioner.

¶9

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

¶10

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25^th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No. 4798 dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶11

…...…………………………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI, J)

¶12

Ajaya

Subhrajit Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhrajit Sahu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rinku Chetty Vs State of Odisha

Belimani Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Gitanjali Barik Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Kumar Mallick Vs Panchanan Behera

Kabita Behera Vs State of Odisha

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs Amiya Kumar Tripathy