Quashed

Bharttruhari Sahu v. Principal Secy. to Govt., Sc and St Development Dept., Bbsr

Orissa HC24 Apr 2024WP(C)/9682/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme claim. Court held reliance on 2020 rules is unsustainable where death occurred in 2015. Quashed rejected order and remanded for fresh decision aligning with Malaya Nanda Sethy and Bindusagar Samantray.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 24.01.2024 quashed; OP No.4 directed to decide within 6 weeks aligning with Malaya Nanda Sethy and Bindusagar Samantray.

Bharttruhari Sahu Vs Principal Secy. to… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.9682 of 2024

¶3

Bharttruhari Sahu

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. G.P. Jena, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Principal Secretary to Govt., SC and ST Development Department, BBSR and Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Order No. 24.04.2024

¶12

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

¶13

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

3 . Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging order dated 24.01.2024, so passed by the O.P. No.4 under Annexure-7. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme has been rejected.

¶15

4 . Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the deceased employee died on 20.06.2015 and the application to get the benefit of appointment under R.A. Scheme was made on 28.09.2015. When the same was not considered and disposed of, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.20502 of 2023. This Court vide order dated 13.07.2023 while disposing the matter remitted the matter to the concerned authority for consideration of the claim of the petitioner.

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

4 .1. It is contended that even though petitioner’s father died on 20.06.2015 and by that time the Amended Rule, 2020 had not come into existence, but relying on the provisions contained under the Amended Rule, 2020, claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide order under Annexure-7. It is contended that since the deceased employee died on 20.06.2015, the rule prevailing at the time of death of the deceased employee, was required to be followed in terms of the decision rendered by 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.

¶18

4.2. It is also contended that in similar issue State has also taken a stand that decision in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa as well as in the case of State of Odisha & others v. Bindusagar Samantray are to be followed.

¶19

The view expressed by the Division Bench in Para-7 of order dated 05.03.2024 in W.A. No.1068 of 2023 is quoted hereunder:-

¶20

“7. Learned counsel representing the parties do not dispute that the case of the sole respondent (writ petitioner) is covered by the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in case of State of Odisha & others v. Bindusagar Samantray rendered on 25.09.2023 in W.A. No.810 of 2021 and batch as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Odisha 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684.”

¶21

4.3. Making all the submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since petitioner’s father died on 20.06.2015, in view of the decision in the case of Malaya

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

Nanda Sethy as cited (supra) as well as in the case of Bindusagar Samantray as cited (supra), the rules prevailing at the time of death of the deceased employee is required to be followed and rejection of petitioner’s claim relying on the Amended Rules, 2020 is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶25

5. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate does not dispute the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the order passed by this Court in W.A. No.1068 of 2023.

¶26

6. Considering the submissions made and the fact that the deceased employee died on 20.06.2015, rejection of the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit relying on the amended provisions, 2020 is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 24.01.2024, so passed by the O.P. No.4 under Annexure7. While quashing the same, this Court directs O.P. No.4 to take a decision in the light of the decision in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy as well as in the case of Bindusagar Samantray, within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of this order with due intimation to the petitioner.

¶27

7. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶28

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

¶29

Judge

¶30

Basudev Signature Not Verified

¶31

Page 3 of 3

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication of order Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 26-Apr-2024 18:33:12