Allowed

Gopinath Pangi v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC1 Feb 2023WP(C)/1330/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Orissa allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. The Court quashed an impugned order of rejection dated 11.10.2022 and remanded the matter to the Secretary, Water Resources Department, directing them to grant appointment based on rules at the time of the father's death.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of rejection dated 11.10.2022 quashed; matter remanded to Secretary, Water Resources Department, Odisha, to dispose within three months.

Gopinath Pangi Vs State of Orissa — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.1330 of 2023

¶3

Gopinath Pangi …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. P.K. Mohapatra , Advocate -versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and others

¶6

…. Opposite Parties

¶7

Mr. A.Behera, A.S.C.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

01.02.2023

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the record.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶17

“It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

¶18

i) Direct the Opp.Parties to give appointment to the Petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in terms of Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation) Assistance) Rules, 1990, which was prevalent at the time of death of his father on 03.07.2014 in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh and others-v.-Ashish Awasthi, reported in 2021(ii) OLR (SC) 1072 and Malaya Nanda Sethy-vrs.-State of Odisha and others in Civil Appeal No.4103/2022, disposed of on 20.05.2022 thereby

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

quash the order dated 11.10.2022 vide Annexure-11 as the same is illegal, arbitrary and not in consonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court.;

¶21

ii) Pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice.”

¶22

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned rejection order dated 11.10.2022 issued by the Superintending Engineer, UKHW Division, Kolab Nagar (Opposite Party No.4) wherein the Opposite Party No.4 has rejected the applications of the Petitioner for Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.

¶23

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner died on 03.07.2014 and is covered under the OCS(RA) Rules, 1990. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that although the application has been submitted by the petitioner i.e. in the year 2015, the Authority sat over the matter and finally by virtue of the impugned order under Annexure-11, the same came to the light.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that let the Authority be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian Bank vs. Promila , reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729 , State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Amit Shrivas , reported in (2020) 10 SCC 496, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The Secretary to Govt., Department of Education (Primary) & Ors. vs. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa (Civil Appeal No.7722 of 2021) as well as in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ashish Awasthi , reported in 2021(II) OLR (SC) 1072. It is also submitted that basing on the said order

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court the petitioner Malaya Nanda Sethi vrs. State of Odisha and others, has been provided with the appointment vide order dated 13.06.2022 of the Government in the Excise Department. Moreover, it is also submitted that when similar issue was raised before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave (C) No.12740 of 2022. Hon’ble Apex Court relying on the decision of Malaya Nanda Sethi vrs. State of Odisha and others remanded the matter for consideration in the light of the judgment passed in the aforesaid Civil Appeal No.4103 of 2022.

¶27

Having heard leaned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court observes that the order dated 11.10.2022 under Annexure 11 is not sustainable in law and therefore, the same is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.1) and looking to the date of death of the deceased and involving whom the appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme is sought for and the date of application for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, this Court directs that the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.1) to look into the claim of the Petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law, taking into account the judgments in the case of Indian Bank vs. Promila , reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729 , State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Amit Shrivas , reported in (2020) 10 SCC 496, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The Secretary to Govt., Department of Education (Primary) & Ors. vs. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa (Civil Appeal No.7722 of 2021) as well as in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ashish Awasthi , reported in 2021(II) OLR (SC) 1072 ,

¶28

// 4 //

¶29

wherein the Apex Court in a clear and categorical term observed that the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee is only to be considered and not the subsequent policy and pass a speaking and reasoned order by giving appointment to the Petitioner under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, subject to availability of vacancies, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶30

With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶31

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge

¶32

RKS

Gopinath Pangi v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopinath Pangi 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

Surya Mohan Das Vs State of Odisha

Suresh Chandra Mohanty Vs State of Orissa

Bishnu Prasad Sarangi Vs State of Odisha

Harekrushna Swain Vs State and Ors.

Manas Das Vs State of Orissa

Jai Girigobardhan Ri Vs State and Ors.