Quashed

Rasmita Kumari Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC1 May 2023WP(C)/2241/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment. The impugned order by Tikabali LAMPCS Ltd. excluding married daughters was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision within two months following the legal position in Kshirabadi Bala Behera.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remanded to Opposite Party No.5 to reconsider claim and take final decision within two months.

Rasmita Kumari Mohanty Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.2241 of 2022

¶3

Rasmita Kumari Mohanty

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. S. Roy, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. State of Odisha and others Opp. Parties Mr. P.C. Das, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

01.05.2023

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

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned

¶15

counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.

¶16

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

¶17

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue Rule “NISI” to the Opp. Parties to show cause as to ;

¶18

(i) Why the impugned order dated 09.11.2021 passed by the Opposite Party No.5 under Annexure-7 in the facts and circumstances of the case will not be declared as illegal and as such liable to be set aside; and

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

(ii) Why the Opposite Parties more particularly Opposite Party No.5 will not be directed to provide appointment to the petitioner under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme within a stipulated time; and

¶21

And if the Opp. Parties do not show cause then the Rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ/writs and any other order as deem fit be passed.”

¶22

It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the

¶23

father of the Petitioner while working as Accountant in the establishment of Opposite Party No.5 died in harness on 18.07.2015. Thereafter, the Petitioner being one of the legal heirs of the deceased employee applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. It is further contended that the Petitioner obtained “No Objection” in the shape of an affidavit from the legal heirs of the deceased employee. She also obtained the consent of the wife of the deceased vide letter dated 15.07.2016 with a request to the authorities to give her appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner further contended that the application for appointment on compassionate ground was kept pending for a long time. Finally, the application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected vide order dated 9.11.2021 on the ground that the rehabilitation rule

¶24

of the Government of Odisha does not provide rehabilitation to married daughter of deceased employee. Challenging such decision

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

of the Managing Director, Tikabali LAMPCS Ltd. dated 9.11.2021 under Annexure-7, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶27

Learned counsel for the Petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the judgment of this Court in Kshirabadi Bala Behera v. Orissa Administrative Tribunal represented through its Registrar, Cuttack & Ors., reported in 2023 (Supp.I) OLR-620 , submitted that a Division Bench of this Court has already adjudicated the question as to whether a married daughter is entitled to apply for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme or not. The Division Bench of this Court while answering the question that the exclusion of married daughter from the category of dependents would not satisfy the case of a valid classification and, accordingly, it was held that the discrimination created by interpretation of said rule amounts to discrimination on the ground of the gender and same will not stand scrutiny of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Division Bench of this Court remanded the matter directing the authorities to consider the case of the Petitioner in that case, who happens to be the married daughter of the deceased Government employee.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner also relies upon

¶29

// 4 //

¶30

the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. C.N. Approva Shree & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal(C) No(s).20166 of 2021 decided on 17.12.2021), submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that a married daughter cannot be denied the appointment on compassionate ground while permitting the same to a married son. Accordingly, the decision of the Karnataka High Court in quashing the decision has been upheld

¶31

and, accordingly, the SLP preferred by the State of Karnataka was

¶32

dismissed.

¶33

Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the StateOpposite Parties, on the other hand, submitted that the decision assailed in the present writ petition under Annexure-7 was taken on 09.11.2021 which is much prior to the judgment delivered by a

¶34

Division Bench of this Court in Kshirabadi Bala Behera’s case (supra) on 24.08.2022. Therefore, it is submitted that the ratio laid

¶35

down by the Division Bench of this Court could not have been taken

¶36

into consideration while passing the impugned order under Annexure-7. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that in the event the matter is remanded to the authorities, the authorities shall consider the same keeping in view the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Kshirabadi

¶37

// 5 //

¶38

Bala Behera’s case (supra).

¶39

8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for

¶40

the respective parties and upon a careful analysis of the factual background as well as the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the decision of the Opposite Party No.5 dated 9.11.2021 under Annexure-7 is unsustainable in law and, accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.5 to reconsider the claim of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in Kshirabadi Bala Behera’s case (supra) and take a final decision in the matter within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.

¶41

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶42

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶43

DEBASIS AECH Digitally signed by DEBASIS AECH Date: 2023.05.02 20:29:52 +05'30'

Rasmita Kumari Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasmita Kumari Mohanty 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

Somanath Barik Vs Anu Garg, I.A.S.

Uma Behera Vs Pradeep Kumar Pujari, in Charge Sub Treasury Officer, Koraput

Ramesh Chandra Deo Vs State of Odisha

Chandaneswar High School, Garhkharad Vs State of Odisha

Rajesh Kumar Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Ghosa Pangi Vs State of Odisha