The High Court held the writ petition premature as the authority did not reject the compassionate appointment claim but deferred action pending formation of a new Board. Petitioner granted liberty to approach appropriate forum later.
Petition disposed with liberty to approach appropriate forum as and when cause of action arises.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 12990 of 2021
Rabindra Nag
….. Petitioner Mr. J. Mohanty, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha and others
….. Opposite parties
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
13.08.2021
Order No.
This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
02
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash
the order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the authority under
Annexure-1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the claim of the petitioner with regard to compassionate appointment under rehabilitation assistance scheme has been rejected by the authority vide order dated 12.02.2021 under Annexure-1. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
On perusal of Annexure-1, it appears that the authority has not rejected the claim of the petitioner under the rehabilitation assistance scheme, rather it has been stated that soon after formation of new Board, the matter will be placed in the next meeting for appropriate action as per the prevailing regulation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the father of the petitioner was died in the year 2009, but he has approached this Court in the year 2019 by filing W.P.(C) No.16574 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.09.2019 directing opposite party no.2 therein to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of three months. The same having not been complied with, the petitioner filed CONTC No. 626 of 2020, which was disposed of vide order
dated 19.01.2021 directing the authority to comply the order dated 19.09.2019 within one month. But without complying the order passed by this Court, the order impugned has been passed.
Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the records, this Court finds that the authority has not rejected the claim of the petitioner, rather vide order dated 12.02.2021 under Annexure-1 it has been stated that soon after formation of new Board, the matter will be placed in the next meeting for appropriate action as per the prevailing regulation. Thereby, this writ petition is premature one and, as such, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum as and when
cause of action will arise.
With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed
of.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Ashok
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking quash of the authority's order rejecting compassionate appointment claim is premature.
Rabindra Nag
State of Odisha
Dr. Justice B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
