Allowed

Manoj Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC6 Jul 2022WPC(OAC)/2897/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa quashed an order rejecting the petitioner's claim for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. It directed the appropriate authority to reconsider the claim based on provisions at the time of the employee's death within two months.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order of rejection and a direction to the opposite party to reconsider the claim within two months and pass an appropriate order.

Manoj Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Orissa — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C)(OAC) No.2897 of 2015

¶3

Manoj Kumar Sahoo …. Petitioner

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶6

…. Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶8

ORDER 06.07.2022 Order No 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶9

2. Heard Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Balabantaray, learned standing counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

¶10

3. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for his appointment under the provision of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme vide Order dtd.03.02.2015 under Annexure-9.

¶11

4. It is submitted that on the death of the employee the Petitioner as his son made relevant application for his appointment under the provision of the said scheme. But the same has been rejected by relying on the provision contained under Rule 2(b) of the OCS (R.A.) Rules, 1990. The ground on which the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected is no more res integra and it has been decided in a

¶12

// 2 //

¶13

number of cases that rejection of claim for appointment on such ground cannot be made.

¶14

5. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on a decision of this Court passed on 05.11.2020 in W.P.(C) No.22678 of 2020. In the said decision this Court while dealing with the similar issue held that the rejection relying on the provision of Rule 2(b) is not permissible.

¶15

6. In view of such submission made and the grounds taken in the writ Petition as well as the decision relied on by Mr. Jena, this Court has got no hesitation in quashing the order of rejection under Annexure-9. While quashing the same, this Court directs O.P. No. 2 to reconsider the matter in the light of the provision prevalent at the time of death of the deceased Govt. employee and pass appropriate order on the claim of the Petitioner within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶16

7. The writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶17

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶18

Sneha

¶19

Page 2 of 2

Manoj Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa

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

Chitta Ranjan Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Biswanath Baliarsingh Vs State of Odisha

Niranjana Suna Vs State of Orissa

Kamal Kumar Dey Vs State of Odisha

Surban Gonda Vs State of Odisha

Paresh Chnadra Barik Vs Commisioner-Cum-Secy