State of Odisha Vs Sunita Barik — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

State of Odisha Vs Sunita Barik — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of the delay of 555 days granted to the appellants-State of Odisha (I.A. No.3850 of 2024 disposed of); writ appeal disposed of with observation, without interfering with the Single Judge's order dated 21.10.2022 directing a fresh decision on compassionate-ground appointment.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 555 days in preferring the intra-court appeal (W.A. No.1518 of 2024), sought to be excused through I.A. No.3850 of 2024, should be condoned. +2 more

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances and the submissions advanced, a case was made out for condoning the delay; accordingly, the delay of 555 days in filing the writ appeal stands condoned and I.A. No.3850 of 2024 stands disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the above discussion the Bench did not consider it necessary to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge; the writ appeal was disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

Key takeaways

In this case the dispute over applicability of the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 versus the 2020 Rules does not arise, it appearing to be an admitted case that the respondents' father died when the 1990 Rules were in force and the application for rehabilitation appointment was made and rejected before the 2020 Rules came into force.obiter¶28
The question of applicability of the 1990 Rules versus the 2020 Rules is expressly left open for being decided in an appropriate case.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.A. No.1518 of 2024 (order dated 12.11.2024; Bench: Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Miss Justice Savitri Ratho). The State of Odisha appealed against the order dated 21.10.2022 of a learned Single Judge in WPC (OAC) No.671 of 2017, which had quashed the rejection (Annexure-7) of Sunita Barik's compassionate-appointment claim and the consequential order (Annexure-6), and had directed a fresh decision under the Rules prevalent at the time of the deceased employee's death, in view of Malayananda Sethi v. State of Odisha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684, within two months. Delay of 555 days in filing the appeal condoned (I.A. No.3850 of 2024 disposed of). The Bench clarified that the dispute over applicability of the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 versus the 2020 Rules does not arise here, since the respondents' father died and the application was made and rejected while the 1990 Rules were in force, and expressly left that question open for an appropriate case. The writ appeal was disposed of without interfering with the impugned order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.A. No. 1518 of 2024

State of Odisha and others

…. Appellants

Mr. Bimbisar Dash, Additional Government Advocate

-versus-

Sunita Barik and another

…. Respondents Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

Order No.

12.11.2024

I.A. No.3850 of 2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

This application has been filed by the appellants-State of Odisha seeking condonation of delay of 555 days in preferring the present intra-court appeal.

Upon notice, Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, learned counsel has appeared for the respondents by filing his Vakalatnama.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, we are of the opinion that a case is made out for condoning the aforesaid delay.

Accordingly, the delay of 555 days in filing the writ appeal stands condoned. The I.A. stands disposed of.

Page 1 of 3

W.A. No.1518 of 2024

The State of Odisha has put to challenge an order dated 21.10.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC (OAC) No.671 of 2017, operative portion of which reads as under:

“11. In view of such steps taken in the matter, the claim of the Petitioner should not have been rejected. In view of the matter, this Court finds that the Petitioner’s claim has been illegally rejected and accordingly this Court is pleased to quash the said rejection available at Annexure-7 so far as it relates to the Petitioner and consequential order at Annexure-6. While quashing the same, this Court directs the O.P. No.1 to take appropriate step in the matter and take a fresh decision in accordance with the Rule prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malayananda Sethi vs. State of Odisha . Such a fresh decision shall be taken within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. If on such recommendation, the Petitioner is found eligible, necessary order of appointment be issued within the above said time period.”

It is apparent from the impugned judgment/order that the appellants have been directed to consider the respondents’ case for appointment on compassionate ground, taking into account the Rules prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malayananda Sethi v. State of Odisha: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684 .

In view of the submissions advanced at the Bar, we make it clear that in this case, the dispute over applicability of the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (in short ‘the

Page 2 of 3

1990 Rules’) and the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 (in short ‘the 2020 Rules’) does not arise, since it appears to be an admitted case that the respondents’ father died when the 1990 Rules were in force and the application for rehabilitation appointment was also made and rejected before coming into force of the 2020 Rules. The said question is left open for being decided in an appropriate case.

In view of the above discussion, we do not consider it necessary to interfere with the impugned order.

We accordingly dispose of the writ appeal with the aforesaid observation.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)

Chief Justice

(Savitri Ratho)

Judge

S. Behera

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Nov-2024 12:29:40

Page 3 of 3