Disposed

Rajesh Kumar Mallick v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Mar 2024WP(C)/5021/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking compassionate appointment as junior clerk following the father's death in harness. The court held the pending application was to be decided under the 1990 Rules as amended in 2016 and directed consideration within two months.

What did the court decide?

Opposite Party No.2 directed to consider petitioner's application dated 13.02.2019 under O.C.S.(RA) Rules, 1990 as amended in 2016 within two months and communicate decision within two weeks thereafte

Rajesh Kumar Mallick 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.5021 of 2024

¶3

Rajesh Kumar Mallick

¶4

…. Petitioner Mr. K.K.Jena,Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opposite Party Mr. D. Mohapatra, A.S.C.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

11.03.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶15

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the StateOpposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶17

It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court would be graciously pleased to:

¶18

A) Admit this writ application.

¶19

B) Issue a rule of NICI asking the opp. parties to show cause as to why appointment letter shall not be issued to the petitioner as junior clerk on compassionate ground on death of his father, (deceased government servant) under prevalent Rehabilitation Assistant Scheme within a short stipulated time, and if the opp. parties did not file any show cause or show insufficient cause, then rule of law be made absolute thereby issuing a writ of mandamus directing the opp. parties to issue

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

appointment letter in favour of the petitioner as junior clerk from the date of application dated 13.02.2019 at the earliest in the interest of justice.

¶22

C) And/Or pass an appropriate order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble court deemed think fit & proper.

¶23

D) For cost.”

¶24

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner, who was working as the District Chief Veterinary Officer, died in harness on 17.06.2018, leaving behind his legal heirs. The petitioner being one of the legal heirs applied for appointment on compassionate ground by submitting an application on 13.02.2019. While such application was pending the new O.C.S. (RA) Rules, 2020 was notified vide GA and PG Department notification dated 17.02.2020. Thereafter, the Opposite Party vide letter dated 20.07.2023 under Annexure-2, requested the petitioner to submit a fresh application under the O.C.S.(RA) Rules, 2020.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture referring to several judgments of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1, State of West Bengal-v.-Debabrata Tiwri reported in (2023 (3) SCALE-557, Suchitra Bal v. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 & batch decided on 27.06.2023 and State of Odisha and others vs. Bindu Sagar Samantaray in W.A.No.810 of 2021 and Biswajit Swain vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021, submitted before in view of the aforesaid judgments, this Court that taking into consideration the date of application of the petitioner, the case of the petitioner is required to be considered under O.C.S. (RA) Rules, 1990 as amended in the year 2016. However, the Opposite parties have asked the petitioner to submit a fresh application under the 2020

¶26

// 3 //

¶27

Rules. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

¶28

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that in view of the GA and PG department resolution dated 17.02.2020 and the new Rules of the year 2020 the petitioner’s application is required to be considered the O.C.S.(RA) Rules, 2020. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in asking the petitioner to submit a fresh application under the 2020 rules. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality and, as such, the writ petition is devoid of merit and same should be dismissed.

¶29

Considering such submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts and taking into account the date of death of the deceased Government employee and the date of application of the present petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Seth’s case (supra) as well as the judgment of this Court in Biswajit Swain’s case (supra). Accordingly, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the pending application of the petitioner dated 13.02.2019 under O.C.S (RA) Rules, 1990 as amended in the year 2016 within a period of two months from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order by the petitioner. The final decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking the final decision as directed hereinabove.

¶30

// 4 //

¶31