Disposed¶34

Suravi Gandha Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC5 Apr 2024WP(C)/421/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme; OCS (R.A.) amended Rules, 2020; death-in-service 25.08.2009; Family Pension; retiral dues; arrear entitlement; Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa (Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2022); DEO Keonjhar; BEO Jhumpura; Director of Treasuries and Inspection, Odisha; High Court of Orissa; W.P.(C) No.421 of 2024; directions to reconsider claim and sanction pension within two months.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with directions: rejection of the petitioner's Rehabilitation Appointment claim quashed; DEO, Keonjhar (O.P. No.4) to take a fresh decision in light of Malaya Nanda Sethy within 2 months; O.P. No.5 to sanction Family Pension along with arrear entitlement within 2 months. ¶34

Suravi Gandha Behera Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on the basis of the amended provisions of 2020 (OCS (R.A.) amended Rules, 2020) was sustainable, given that her late husband died in service on 25.08.2009. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The Court quashed the rejection of the petitioner's claim to get the benefit of Rehabilitation Appointment made basing on the amended provisions of 2020, in view of the decision governing the field in Malaya Nanda Sethy.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

While quashing the rejection, the Court directed DEO, Keonjhar (O.P. No.4) to take a fresh decision in the light of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Malaya Nanda Sethy within a period of 2 (two) months from receipt of the order.

¶30

Key takeaways

Since BEO, Jhumpura had already recommended the Family Pension claim vide letter dated 08.02.2024, O.P. No.5 was directed to take effective steps for sanction of Family Pension along with arrear entitlement within a period of 2 (two) months from receipt of the order.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.421 of 2024 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, order dated 05.04.2024) — disposed of. The petitioner, whose late husband died in service on 25.08.2009, had sought compassionate appointment and release of Family Pension and retiral dues. The Court quashed the rejection of her claim to Rehabilitation Appointment made by DEO, Keonjhar (O.P. No.4) basing on the OCS (R.A.) amended Rules, 2020, holding it unsustainable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2022 (disposed of on 20.05.2022), and directed DEO, Keonjhar to take a fresh decision in the light of that decision within 2 (two) months. As BEO, Jhumpura had already recommended the Family Pension claim vide letter dated 08.02.2024, O.P. No.5 (Director of Treasuries and Inspection, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, impleaded during the proceedings) was directed to take effective steps for sanction of Family Pension along with arrear entitlement within 2 (two) months.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.421 of 2024

¶3

Suravi Gandha Behera

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Ms. M. Mohapatra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. S. Jena, AGA

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶11

ORDER

¶12

05.04.2024

¶13

Order No. 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶14

2. On the oral prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, she is permitted to implead Director of Treasuries and Inspection, Odisha, Bhubaneswar as O.P. No.5 in Court today.

¶15

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

4 . The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition

¶17

inter alia with the following prayer: -

¶18

“Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be allowed;

¶19

(A) A writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued commanding the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner in a suitable regular post,

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

within a time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court and

¶22

(B) Direct the Opp. parties to release the pension and other retiral dues with interest, to the petitioner within the time as stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.”

¶23

5. It is contended that even though petitioner’s late husband died while in service on 25.08.2009, but inspite of several approach when the benefit of Family Pension and other retiral dues admissible to the deceased employee and so also the benefit of compassionate appointment was not provided, the present Writ Petition was filed.

¶24

6. Mr. S. Jena, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate basing on various instructions issued by the Opp. Parties contended that with regard to the claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, the same has been rejected by the DEO, Keonjhar-O.P. No.4 relying on the OCS (R.A.) amended Rules, 2020. With regard to sanction of Family Pension and other pensionary benefits due to the deceased employee, learned State Counsel contended that basing on the office memorandum issued by the Government in Finance Department on 19.05.2022, necessary proposal for sanction of Family Pension in favour of the petitioner has already been submitted before the O.P. No.5 by the BEO, Jhumpura-O.P. No.3 vide his letter dated

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

// 3 //

¶27

08.02.2024 and necessary steps will be taken to sanction Family Pension in favour of the petitioner.

¶28

7. To the submissions made by learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since late husband of the petitioner died on 25.08.2009, rejection of petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of compassionate appointment relying on the amended provisions of 2020 is not sustainable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa , Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2022 disposed of on 20.05.2022.

¶29

8. Considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition is inclined to quash the rejection of the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of Rehabilitation Appointment basing on the amended provisions of 2020 in view of the decision governing the field in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy as cited (supra).

¶30

8. 1. While quashing the same, this Court directs DEOKeonjhar-O.P. No.4 to take a fresh decision in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶31

8.2. With regard to sanction of Family Pension, since BEO, Jhumpura vide his letter dated 08.02.2024 has already recommended the claim vide letter dated

¶32

// 4 //

¶33

08.02.2024, O.P. No.5 is directed to take effective steps for sanction of Family Pension along with arrear entitlement, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶34