Partly allowed

Soma Ranjan Panda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Nov 2023WP(C)/15581/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a legal heir of a deceased employee, sought appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme following the rejection of his application. The Court set aside the impugned rejection order and remanded the matter to the authority to consider the application afresh in light of recent Supreme Court judgments within stipulated timelines.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 03.09.2021 set aside and matter remanded to Opposite Party No.2 to consider the application afresh within two months.

Soma Ranjan Panda Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15581 of 2022

¶2

Soma Ranjan Panda

¶3

…. Petitioner Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and others

¶6

…. Opp. Parties Mr. Sanjay Rath, A.S.C.

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

¶8

Order No.

¶9

ORDER 20.11.2023

¶10

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

¶11

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the StateOpposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶12

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

¶13

“The petitioner therefore most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the order in Annexure-8 shall not be quashed;

¶14

And as to why the petitioner shall not be engaged under the “Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme” in office of the Opp. Party No.2 in the post of Jr. Assistant/Jr. Clerk as per his qualification;

¶15

And if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

show insufficient cause to make the said rule absolute by issuance of an appropriate Writ(s), Order(s), direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;

¶18

And/or to pass such other order(s), direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the present case.”

¶19

It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the father of the Petitioner, namely, Sudhiranjan Panda, who was working as an Assistant Secretary in the office of Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Cuttack, died in harness on 04.10.2016. Thereafter, the Petitioner being the legal heir of his deceased father submitted an application through prescribed format along with relevant documents for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme within stipulated time before the authority concerned. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the application of the Petitioner has been rejected by the authorities by the impugned letter/order dated 03.09.2021 under Annexure-8 to the writ petition. In this context, learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy –v.- State of Orissa and others, reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1 and State of West Bengal -v.- Debabrata Tiwri, reported in 2023 (3) SCALE-557 as well as the judgments of this Court in Suchitra Bal v. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 decided on 16.03.2023); in Bindusagar Samantaray v. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.A. No.810 of 2021 decided on 25.09.2023); and in Biswajit Swain

¶20

// 3 //

¶21

v. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 disposed of on 31.10.2023) . Relying the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the application of the Petitioner needs to be considered in the light of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court.

¶22

Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, submits that during the pendency of the application submitted by the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, a new rule was enacted in the year 2020. Therefore, the authorities, by referring to the new rules, have rejected the application of the Petitioner. He further submits that he has no objection, if a direction is given to the authorities to consider the grievance petition of the Petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶23

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the application at the stage of admission by setting aside the impugned order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-8 to the writ petition and further remand the matter back to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the application of the Petitioner afresh in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy’s case (supra), Debabrata Tiwari’s case (supra), Suchitra Bal’s case (supra), Bindusagar Samantaray’s case (supra) and Biswajit Swain’s case (supra) and the Petitioner is directed to

¶24

// 4 //

¶25

approach the Opposite Party No.2 along with certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today. On appearance of the Petitioner, Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner and dispose of the matter by passing a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Any decision so taken on the same shall be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of ten days thereafter.

¶26

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition

¶27

Debasis

¶28

is disposed of.

¶29

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.

¶30

( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 23-Nov-2023 19:32:24

Soma Ranjan Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soma Ranjan Panda 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramahari Pattajoshi Vs Bhaskarjyoti Sharma,Ias

Abhiram Naik Vs Ashok K.K.Meena, I.A.S.

G.Ananda Dora Vs Diptesh Kumar Pattanayak, I.P.S.

Banchanidhi Takiri Vs State of Odisha

Jaya Ku.Choudhury Vs Principal Secy.to

Hemanta Kumar Padhi Vs State of Odisha