Disposed

Abhinna Kumar Swain v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Aug 2024WP(C)/17198/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Where an application for compassionate appointment under a deceased employee's case was received prior to commencement of the new Rules of 2022 and remained undecided due to inordinate delay attributable to authorities, this Court held the claim must be examined under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, 1990 rather than the new Rules. Writ petition disposed of with direction to opposite party No.2 to expedite decision, with opportunity of hearing, preferably within eight weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

Abhinna Kumar Swain Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.17198 of 2024

¶3

Abhinna Kumar Swain …. Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & others

¶6

…. Opposite Parties Mr. B.P. Tripathy, AGA

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

Order

12.08.2024

No.

This matter is taken up through virtual mode.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State.

¶16

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the opposite parties and in particular, opposite party No.2 to appoint him in any suitable post under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme taking into account the correspondences by letter dated 12^th March, 2024 of Additional Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur and dated 25^th April, 2024 of the Board of Revenue (Consolidation Wing), Odisha on the grounds stated therein.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such a request for compassionate appointment on account of death of deceased mother is pending for long and it could not be ensured and at last, a decision was taken vide Annexure-10 to be freshly examined as per the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, 2020. It is the contention of leaned counsel for the petitioner that such

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

appointment on compassionate ground should have been attended to prior to the commencement of the new Scheme but it stands defeated in view of Annexure-10. While claiming that an application for rehabilitation appointment was received much prior to the new Rules, 2022, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure-4. It is claimed that initially application was submitted by the husband of the deceased employee and subsequently, on instructions of the authority concerned, it was moved by the petitioner but there has been inordinate delay and in the meantime, the Scheme of 2020 arrived with a decision under Annexure-10.

¶20

Mr. Tripathy, learned AGA for the State submits that he does not have information as to if and when such an application for compassionate appointment was moved before the authority concerned.

¶21

However, having regard to the facts pleaded on record and submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of Annexure-4, the Court finds that such an application by any means was pending as on 31^st August, 2013 which is prior to the commencement of the new Rules. The Court further finds that necessary correspondences were made without any final decision to be taken on the compassionate appointment of the petitioner as per the old Scheme. In the considered view of the Court, the delay is inordinate and it cannot be attributed to the petitioner or for that matter, husband of the deceased, who had initially approached the authority concerned for compassionate appointment. In other words, the Court is of the conclusion that any such request for compassionate appointment ought to have been attended to and examined by opposite party No.2 with a decision as per the Scheme of 1990, hence, therefore, a direction is required to be issued to said

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

authority to do the needful with an order at the earliest as the same is necessary in the interest of justice.

¶24

Hence, it is ordered.

¶25

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.2 to expedite decision on compassionate appointment of the petitioner as against the death of deceased mother followed by an order, if necessary, after providing an opportunity of hearing to him. It is further directed that such decision by opposite party No.2 shall be as per and in accordance with the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, 1990 instead of new Rules with an immediate order at the earliest preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

9. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶27

A copy of the order be supplied to Mr. Tripathy, learned AGA for the State for its onward intimation to opposite party No.2 and early compliance of the same.

¶28

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶29

TUDU

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 13-Aug-2024 15:51:45

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Abhinna Kumar Swain v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Abhinna Kumar Swain v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bipra Ranjan Beura Vs State of Odisha

Dibakar@Kalu@Kalia Dalei Vs State of Odisha

Manas Kumar Sahu Vs Union of India

Goutam Charan Das Vs Biswadarsani Das

Kaustabh Raju Wadekar Vs the Vice-Chancellor, Ict-Indian Oil Odisha

Pravat Kumar Sahani Vs State of Odisha