Allowed

Manoj Kumar Behera v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC5 Dec 2023WP(C)/3099/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Orissa examined the rejection of a compassionate ground appointment claim. The court found the rejection lacked valid grounds and cited Supreme Court precedents to quash the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 10.01.2020 is quashed. The matter is remanded to Opposite Party No.2 for fresh consideration within two months.

Manoj Kumar Behera 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.3099 of 2020

¶3

Manoj Kumar Behera

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Sidheswar Mallik, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and another

¶8

…. Opp. Parties

¶9

Mr. Saswat Das, A.G.A.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

05.12.2023

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

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶18

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

¶19

“Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to,

¶20

1. Quash the order No.99 dt. 10.01.2020 as at Annexure-1 and the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the plea that he

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

is the 4^th legal heir.

¶23

2. Direct/Order that the petitioner shall be appointed under rehabilitation assistance scheme and his case cannot be rejected on the ground that his two elder brothers have not applied for the service.

¶24

3. Pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bonafide interest of justice.”

¶25

The background facts leading to filing the present writ petition is that the father of the present Petitioner, namely, Narayan Behera, was working as Diarist-cum-Dispatcher in the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack. While working as such, the father of the Petitioner died in harness on 19.12.2013 leaving behind his widow, three sons and a married daughter. The Petitioner being one of the legal heirs with the consent of other legal heirs submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground under the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990 along with other required documents on 1.5.2014. Such application of the Petitioner was kept pending by the authorities. No final decision was taken thereon or at least the same was never communicated to the Petitioner till he filed an application under the R.T.I. Act. It is further stated in the writ petition that when the Petitioner went to the office of the Opposite Party No.2, he was informed that the Finance Department, Government of Odisha has rejected his application for appointment on compassionate ground as the widow mother of the present

¶26

// 3 //

¶27

Petitioner was available for appointment in preference to other legal heirs. However, it has been emphatically stated in the writ petition that no such order was ever communicated to the Petitioner. Since no communication was received by the Petitioner from the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner was constrained to apply under the Right to Information Act by filing an application on 13.12.2019. In reply to such R.T.I. application, the Petitioner has been intimated that his application has been rejected by the Government and in view of the provisions contained in Rule-8(e)(v) of the Amended Rules, 2016, the application once rejected by the Government, the same cannot be reopened. However, no specific reason whatsoever was intimated to the Petitioner.

¶28

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that taking into consideration the date of the death and the application filed by the Petitioner, the case of the Petitioner should have been considered promptly considering the urgency and the immediacy of the need of the family and keeping in view the objects of the rules as provided under Rule-4 of the said rules. He further contended that the Opposite Parties sat over the matter for several years and finally when the Petitioner filed an application under the R.T.I. Act, he was informed that his application has been rejected without stating therein any valid ground on which the application has been rejected. In course of his argument,

¶29

// 4 //

¶30

learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the judgment of this Court in Prem Sagar Naik v. State of Orissa & Ors., reported in 2017(II) ILR – CUT-826 , submitted before this Court that the application by any one of the legal heirs is admissible and the application cannot be rejected on the ground that the applicant is 3^rd or 4^th legal heir. He further submitted that it was also been held by this Court that no preference is available to 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd legal heirs. With the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned rejection order dated 10.01.2020 under Annexure-7 be quashed and the Opposite Parties be directed to consider the matter afresh in the light of the law laid down by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶31

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that the application submitted by the Petitioner was duly considered by the Government and such application having been rejected at the Government level, the Opposite Party No.2 is not more competent to reopen the same in view of the provision contained in Rule-8(e)(v) of the Rules, 1990. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the Petitioner. Accordingly, it was contented that the writ

¶32

// 5 //

¶33

petition is devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed. In course of his argument, learned Additional Government Advocate also referred to the counter affidavit filed by the State-Opposite Parties. He also referred to the documents annexed in the counter affidavit, particularly the letter dated 9.4.2018 under Annexure-C/2, submitted before this Court that the application of the Petitioner having been rejected by the Finance Department, Government of Odisha vide their letter dated 02.04.2018, the case of the Petitioner was no more open to be considered on merits by the Opposite Party

¶34

No.2. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels as well as on careful scrutiny of the pleadings from both the sides and upon careful examination of the background facts of the present case, further keeping in view the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the in fact the death of the father of the present Petitioner and the subsequent application has not been disputed by any of the parties, however the application of the Petitioner, which is stated to have been rejected by the State Government, is not supported by any ground, on which, the same has been rejected at least it was not demonstrated from the documents annexed to the counter affidavit as to what ground the

¶35

// 6 //

¶36

application has been rejected. The letter under Annexure-C/2 reveals that the Government has rejected the application of the Petitioner, therefore, the same bears no merit for consideration.

¶37

In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the Petitioner needs fresh consideration by the authorities by applying the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. 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); Bindusagar Samantaray v. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.A. No.810 of 2021 decided on 25.09.2023) and Biswajit Swain v. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 disposed of on 31.10.2023).

¶38

In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court deems it proper to quash the order dated 10.01.2020 under Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the matter afresh without being influenced by any of the factor and being guided by the law laid down by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above noted judgments and

¶39

// 7 //

¶40

take a final decision within a period of two months from the date of communication of a copy of this order by the Petitioner. The final decision so taken be also communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

¶41

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

¶42

( A.K. Mohapatra)

¶43

Judge

¶44

Debasis

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 08-Dec-2023 11:06:48

Manoj Kumar Behera v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Behera 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

Ram Chandra Karjee Vs Union of India

Binayak Bahinipati Vs State of Odisha

Bibhudutta Satapathy Vs Secretary to Govt Water Resources Dept.

Krutibas Pattanayak Vs State of Odisha

Srinibas Purohit Vs State of Odisha

Muktikanta Tripathy Vs State of Odisha