Remanded

Basanta Kumar Panda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC16 Mar 2023WP(C)/6031/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of appointment application under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme following parent's death. Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to consider the application afresh per Supreme Court law.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Additional Secretary to consider application afresh within two months of receipt.

Basanta Kumar Panda 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.6031 of 2023

¶3

Basanta Kumar Panda

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr.Baladev Panda, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

…. Opp. Parties Mr. T.Patnaik, A.S.C.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

16.03.2023

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

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing counsel for the State. Perused the Writ Petition and documents annexed to the writ petition.

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the illegal and arbitrary action of the Opposite Party no.1 in refusing to give appointment to the Petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme and for a direction to the Opposite Parties to appoint the Petitioner in Group-C post.

¶18

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner, Late Jayadev Panda, who was working as Chowkidar (Work charged) under R.W.S & S Department died on 24.10.2015 while discharging his night duty in Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Section, Aul, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Parties for considering his appointment as a Junior Clerk under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme of the Government of Odisha. 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 order

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

dated 13.04.2021 under Annexure-33. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1 and State of Madhya Pradesh v.Ashish Awasti, 2021(II) OLR (SC) 1072. . Relying the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application of the petitioner needs to be considered in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶21

Learned Additional Standing counsel for the State, 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. However, he does not dispute in passing of the impugned order and k the authorities have not considered the law laid down in the case of the Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra). He further submits that he has no objection, if a direction is given to the authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶22

Considering the submissions made by the respective parties, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the application at the stage of admission for appointment by setting aside the impugned order dated 13.04.2021 under Annexure-33 and further remand the matter back to the Additional Secretary to Government Panchayati Raj & Drinking Water Department, Bhubaneswar to consider the application of the petitioner afresh in the light of the law laid down of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra) and the petitioner is directed to approach to the Additional Secretary to Government Panchayati Raj & Drinking Water Department along with certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

today. On appearance of the petitioner, Additional Secretary 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. Any decision so taken on the same shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of ten days thereafter.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge

¶28

RKS

Basanta Kumar Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basanta Kumar 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

Himani Bagh Vs State of Odisha

Gangadhar Barik Vs State of Odisha

Bishnu Charan Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Basanti Barik Vs State of Odisha

Jageswar Paltasingh Vs State of Odisha

Bimbadhar Jena Vs State of Odisha