Partly allowed

Lokanath Dehury v. the Commnr. Cum Secy. to Govt., Water Resources Dept., Bbsr

Orissa HC9 Nov 2023WP(C)/35026/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order rejecting the petitioner's application for appointment under outdated rules. Citing previous orders and Supreme Court law, the court directed the authorities to reconsider the matter strictly under the OCS(RA) Rules, 1990 and communicate the final decision within two weeks after an initial two-month review.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned order; remand to re-consider under OCS(RA) Rule 1990 and pass reasoned order communicated within two months.

Lokanath Dehury Vs the Commnr. Cum Secy. to… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.35026 of 2023

¶3

Lokanath Dehury

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr.Basudev Barik, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary Opposite Parties to Govt Water Resources Department, Bhubaneswar & others

¶8

Mr.P.K.Muduli, A.G.A.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

09.11.2023

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

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶17

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶18

“ It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, issue rule nisi calling upon the Opp.Parties to show cause as to why the order Memo No.5946 dated 22.09.2023 under Annexure-8 shall not be quashed and the Petitioner shall not be appointed under OCS(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 which was in force at the time of death of his father, if the Opp.Parties fail to file show cause and insufficient cause make the rule absolute and direct the Opp.Parties more particularly Opp.Party No.4 to give

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

appointment to the Petitioner under OCS(RA) Rule, 1990 within stipulated time.

¶21

And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court would be deem fit and proper as facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶22

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that earlier the Petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.33651 of 2022. This Court vide order dated 14.12.2022 disposed of the said Writ Petition with a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider the application of the Petitioner under the old Rules and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa and others : reported in 2022(II) OLR (SC) 1. However, the Opposite Parties without considering the application of the Petitioner in its proper perspective and in terms of the order passed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition, rejected the application of the Petitioner vide order dated 22.09.2023 under Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition. On a careful examination of the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the same runs contrary to the direction given by this Court as well as the law laid down by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶23

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the application of the Petitioner has been considered and rejected by the authority by a detailed and speaking order. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order under annexure-8.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case and keeping in view the law laid down in the case of

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

Malaya Nanda Sethy-v.- State of Orissa and others : reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC) 1 and State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tewari passed in Civil Appeal No.8842 of 2022 decided on 3^rd of March, 2023, as well as in Suchitra Bal v. State of Odisha and others by a Division bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 decided on 16.03.2023 as well as in the case of Bindusagar Samantaray v. State of Odisha and others by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.810 of 2021 decided on 25.09.2023, this Court is of the view that the application of the Petitioner should have been considered under the OCS(RA) Rule, 1990. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the impugned order under Annexure-8 and the same is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to Opposite Party no.4 to reconsider the matter in terms of the OCS(RA) Rule, 1990 by passing a speaking and reasoned order. While disposing of the application of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.4 is directed to reconsider the matter in terms of the direction given in the earlier Writ Petition within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. The final decision taken on the application of the Petitioner be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.