Disposed¶21

Vickyadan Suna v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC1 Aug 2024WP(C)/16456/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha; compassionate appointment; Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme; rejection vide Annexure-5 (2014); representation of 2016 pending (Annexure-6); direction to reconsider / re-examine on merit; laches and delay in approaching the Court left unaddressed; writ petition disposed of; Justice R.K. Pattanaik; 01.08.2024.

What did the court decide?

Direction to re-examine on merit the petitioner's 2016 representation (Annexure-6) pending with the authority concerned; certified copy to be issued as per rules. ¶21

Vickyadan Suna Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P. (C) No.16456 of 2024

¶3

Vickyadan Suna

¶4

…. P e titioner Mr. R. L. Pattnaik, A dvocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha a nd others

¶7

…. Opposit e parties Mr. H.K.Panigr a hi, ASC

¶8

COR A M: MR. J USTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

01.08.2024

Order No.

This matter is taken up through virtual mode.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ASC for the State.

¶15

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a d irection to the opposi t e parties and in particular, opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to reconsider the appointment under the Reha b ilitation Assistance Sch e me on the grounds stated. 4. Learne d counsel for the petitioner submits t hat the representatio n of the petitioner as at Annexure-6 is pending decision of th e authority concerned and has not been disposed of till date.

¶16

Mr. Pa n igrahi, learned ASC for the State would su b mit that such request for compassionate appointment was rejected vide Annexure-5 i n 2014 and in so far as the representation o f 2016 is concerned, it was filed by the petitioner once again and t here has

¶17

P a ge 1 of 2

¶18

been conside r able delay in the meantime in reaching t h e Court and hence, w rit petition should be dismissed on accoun t of such laches.

¶19

Withou t expressing anything with regard to the del a y which has taken pla c e in approaching this Court, it is of the v iew that the petition e r since claimed to have moved the a uthority concerned wi t h a representation again in 2016 and stat e d to be pending till d a te, the same should be directed to be re- e xamined on merit.