Debaraj Dhir Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appealing for the State-Opposite Parites. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶16

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶17

“Therefore, the Petitioner, most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, issue notice to the Opposite Parties and after hearing the parties be pleased

¶18

i) To issue direction to the Opposite Parties more particularly the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 4 to issue appointment order in favour of the Petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in any Cass IV post within a stipulated period.

¶19

ii) Further prayed of the case of the Petitioner may kindly be considered as per decision of this Hon’ble Court dated 25.09.2023 passed in W.A.No.966 of 2021 (State of Odisha Vrs.

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

Radhakanta Sahoo) & W.A.No.1132 of 2022 (State of Odisha Vrs. Basanti Soren)

¶22

And pass any other order/orders which your Lordship deem fit and proper.”

¶23

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the father of the Petitioner namely, late Girish Chandra Dhir was a Government employee working under the Water Resources Department of Government of Odisha as he was initially appointed as Watchman in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Manjore Irrigation Division, Athamallik. While working as such, the father of the Petitioner died in harness on 06.10.2016. Thereafter, the Petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground initially on 21.03.2017 enclosing all relevant documents before the Executive Engineer, Manjore Irrigation Division, Athamallik. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the application of the Petitioner was duly scrutinised by a committee duly constituted to examine the application under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. The application submitted by the Petitioner was returned vide letter dated 30.03.2017 with the suggestion to resubmit the same after necessary compliance of the observation raised by the Department of Water Resources, Government of Odisha vide his letter dated 08.04.2016. Thereafter the Petitioner again resubmitted his application which was duly forwarded to the Office of the Chief Engineer & Basin Manager, Brahmani Basin Samal vide letter dated 02.05.2018 of the Executive Engineer, Manjore Irrigation Division, Athamallick under Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition. Thereafter, the application of the Petitioner has not been considered as has been mentioned in letter. Bing aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties in considering the application of the Petitioner under the

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

¶26

In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that taking into consideration the date of death of the ExGovernment employee i.e. on 06.10.2016 and the date of initial filing of the application for appointment on compassionate ground i.e. on 21.03.2017, the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme 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) SCALE557,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 . Biswajit Swain v. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 decided on 31.10.2023 . He further contended that keeping in view the ratio of the judgment in Biswajit Swain v. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 decided on 31.10.2023 wherein this Court has declared Rule 6(9) of the OCS(RA) Rule 2020, which stipulates that all pending applications under R.A. Scheme are to be considered under the OCS(RA) Rule, 2020, to be ultra vires of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Opposite Parties be directed to consider the application of the Petitioner within a stipulated period under OCS(RA) Rule, 1990.

¶27

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that the application submitted by the Petitioner was initially returned, as the same was not in conformity with the letter of the Department of Water Resources. He further contended that

¶28

// 4 //

¶29

although the Petitioner resubmitted his application, however the status of such application was not known. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that he has no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Parties to consider the application of the Petitioner in accordance with law, if the same is still pending within a stipulated period of time.

¶30

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case and keeping in view the settled position of law as has been held by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court deems to proper to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the pending application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground under the OCS(RA) Rule, 1990. The Petitioner shall approach the Opposite Party no.2 along with certified copy of this order within three weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party no.2 shall consider the application of the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of approach and the final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

¶31

With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶32

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶35

Digitally Signed Debasis Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 12-Mar-2024 19:42:31

Debaraj Dhir v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debaraj Dhir 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

Shiba Kumar Sendria Vs Dr. Lalmohan Nayak, Superintendent, Vss Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Burla

Debashis Mahala Vs Prasanta Mishra,a.I.G of Police,Cuttack

Sabita Dash Vs Dr. Arabinda Kumar Padhee, IAS

Susanta Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Baina Dhal Vs State of Odisha

Rajesh Kumar Mallick Vs State of Odisha