Dismissed

Rashmita Pattnayak @ Pattnaik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 Jun 2021WP(C)/9103/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged Rule 2(b)(iii) of the Orissa Civil Service Rules barring married daughters from compassionate appointment. The division bench dismissed the writ petition, holding it could not be entertained as a coordinate Bench had previously dismissed her claim and attained finality against a fresh petition on the same cause of action.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rashmita Pattnayak @ Pattnaik Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.9103 of 2021

¶3

Rashmita Pattnayak @ Pattnaik …. Petitioner Ms. R. Rajgarhia, Advocate

-versus-

Order No.

State of Odisha and others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Additional Government Advocate for State

¶9

CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE K. R. MOHAPATRA

¶10

ORDER
08.06.2021

¶11

This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

¶12

The Petitioner, who is seeking compassionate appointment, is the married daughter of a deceased government employee. She seeks to challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 2 (b) (iii) of the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (‘Rules’) to the extent it has while including daughters in the list of ‘family members’ pre-fixed that word by the word ‘unmarried’. In other words it renders married daughters ineligible for rehabilitation assistance including compassionate appointment.

¶13

This is however, the third round of litigation in this Court at the instance of this very Petitioner. Earlier the Petitioner and her mother

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

had filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.11893 of 2012 in this Court seeking the relief of compassionate appointment. That writ petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 12^th February 2013 permitting the Petitioner to make a fresh representation to the Opposite Parties. When no decision was taken on the said fresh application, the Petitioner approached this Court for the second time, by filing Contempt Case No. 170 of 2014. However, by order dated 22^nd June 2016, a co-ordinate Division Bench (DB) of this Court dismissed the said contempt petition and categorically negatived the Petitioner’s claim by observing that a “married daughter cannot be given an (compassionate) appointment.” The DB further observed that the earlier order in Writ Petition (Civil) No.11893 of 2012 “does not seem to be in consonance with law.”

¶16

For reasons best known to her, the Petitioner did not further challenge the order dated 22^nd June, 2016 which thus attained finality. Now, nearly five years thereafter, the Petitioner seeks the same relief albeit by the route of challenging the Rules which negative her claim.

¶17

It is not possible for this Court, in the teeth of aforesaid order dated 22^nd June 2016 passed by a coordinate Bench which has become final, to entertain a fresh petition on the same cause of action.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶19

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

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

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.

¶22

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

¶23

( K. R. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶24

M. Panda

¶25

Page 3 of 3

Rashmita Pattnayak @ Pattnaik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rashmita Pattnayak @ Pattnaik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bebi Bidika Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Utkal Highways Vs State of Odisha

Prof.Prasanta Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Saroj Kumar Sahoo Vs Uco Bank

M/S. Kjsl Utkal(Jv) Vs Mcl

M/S Geolane Infrastructures (P) Ltd. Vs Principal Commnr., GST and Central Excise, Bbsr