Anil Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

“It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, issue show cause notice to the Opp. Parties and after hearing may quash/set-a-side the order dt. 16.05.2022 passed by Opp. Party No.5 for the interest of justice;

¶20

And

¶21

Further prays to direct the Opp. parties to provide suitable appointment to the petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme with immediate effect.

¶22

And

¶23

Further prays to pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as would be deemed fit and proper.”

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that being aggrieved the conduct of the Opposite Parties in rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by applying new rules of the year 2020, the

¶25

// 2 //

¶26

petitioner approached this Court challenging the rejection order dated 16.05.2022 under Annexure-5 as well as for a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the petitioner old rule as has been decided 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 .

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in course of argument, submits that the father of the petitioner, namely, Late Surendranath Jena, who was working as a Group-D employee in The United PuriNimapara Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. under the Opposite Party No.5, died in harness on 24.11.2010 leaving behind his legal heirs including the petitioner. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Rules with the consent of other legal heirs under OCS (R.A.) Rules, 1990 and the same was kept pending by the authorities unnecessarily.

¶28

Being aggrieved of such order, the petitioner approached this Court by this Court by filing the present writ application. 7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the case of the petitioner has been duly considered under OCS (RA) Rules. He further submits that in the meantime, OCS (RA) Rules has been amended and a new rule came into force in the year 2020. Pursuant to the same, the application of the petitioner was considered under the new rules of 2020. Therefore, it is submitted by learned counsel for the State that the authorities have not committed any illegality for rejecting the application of the petitioner by order dated 16.05.2022 under Annexure-5 to the writ application.

¶29

Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, on a careful consideration the submissions made by the parties and further on a careful examination of the background facts of the case and taking into consideration the death of the father of the petitioner and further also taking into consideration the fact that the application made for

¶30

// 3 //

¶31

appointment under rehabilitation Assistance Scheme kept pending for a long period indefinitely and final decision has been taken thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner vide order dated 16.05.2022. In this context, Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a decision in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1 and various identical scenario Hon’ble Apex Court has concluded that the application of the appointment should been considered under old rules keeping in view the date of death of the father of the petitioner in the reported judgment, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra). Accordingly, the impugned rejection order dated 16.05.2022 under Annexure-5 is unsustainable in law and the same is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Parties to consider the case keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra) as well as State of West Bengal vrs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others. Etc. Etc., reported in (2023) (3) SCALE 557 . Accordingly, the Opposite Parties are directed to consider the application of the petitioner as has been directed hereinabove and take a decision within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. Any decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Mar-2024 11:31:27

¶36

Anil

Anil Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Braja Kishore Sahoo Vs Chief Commnr. Gst, Cx and Customs, Bbsr

Akshaya Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Balakrushna Parida Vs Food Corporation of India, New Delhi

Anwar Ahmed Vs State of Odisha

Duryadhan Barik @ Dhana Barik Vs State of Odisha

Jogeswar Pujari Vs State of Odisha