Quashed

Shakti Prasad Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Mar 2023WP(C)/5532/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's claim for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Directing the opposite party to reassess the claim based on the law applicable at the time of the employee's death as per the Malayananda Sethy Apex Court ruling within two months.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-5 dated 16th October, 2021 is quashed. Opposite Party No.3 directed to take a fresh decision on the claim within two months relying on Malayananda Sethy.

Shakti Prasad Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.5532 of 2023

¶3

Shakti Prasad Sahu

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and Others

¶7

…. Opp. Parties

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order

03.03.2023

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

¶14

2. Heard Mr. D.P. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sangram Jena, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶15

3. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the rejection of his claim for appointment under the provisions under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme relying on the provisions of the amended Rules, 2020. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since at the time of death of his father, which happened on 27^th July, 2016, the Petitioner was minor, on attaining the majority, he immediately made his application on 30^th September, 2018. But the said application has been rejected vide Annexure-5 keeping in view to the provision of the amended Rules, 2020.

¶16

4. It is contended that since the father of the petitioner died on 27^th July, 2016, in view of the decision of the

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malayananda Sethy Vs. State Odisha and Others ., the claim of the petitioner is required to be considered as per the rules prevalent at the time of death for the employee concerned.

¶19

5. Mr. Jena, learned Standing Counsel also did not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner with regard to the decision rendered in the case of Malayananda Sethy (supra).

¶20

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the view expressed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Malayananda Sethy Vs. State Odisha, rejection of the Petitioner’s claim vide Annexure-5 basing on the amended Rules, 2020 is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order at Annexure-5 dated 16^th October, 2021. While quashing the same this Court directs Opposite Party No.3, to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malayananda Sethy Vs. State of Odisha and such a fresh exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶21

7. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶23

Basudev

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Shakti Prasad Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakti Prasad Sahu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gour Chandra Sahoo Vs Aswathy S,Ias

Dharmajit Behera Vs State of Odisha

Radhakanta Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Harihar Dash Vs Chandra Sekhar Panigrahi, D.E.O, Nabarangpur.

Bansidhar Behera Vs Satya Narayan Sahoo, Director, Secondary Education Dept., Bbsr.

Purna Chandra Das Vs State of Odisha