Anil Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶21

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to quash the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the Opposite Party No.4-Chief District Medical & Public Health Officer, Koraput under Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the Opposite Party No.4-Chief District Medical & Public Health Officer, Koraput to issue appointment order in his favour with other consequential

¶22

Page 1 of 5.

¶23

benefits.

¶24

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the sister of the present Petitioner, who was a Government servant, died in harness on 20.09.2011. After the death of the Government Servant, the present Petitioner being the brother of the deceased and the one taking care of the family, submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground to provide support to the family of the deceased Government employee on 30.08.2012. Along with her application, the Petitioner had also submitted the income certificate, legal heir certificate etc. as is required for processing of his claim. The distress certificate was issued by the competent authority on 02.11.2015.

¶25

While the matter stood thus, on 02.11.2015 the competent authority rejected the application of the Petitioner applying the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 2020. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached this Court by challenging the order dated 11.05.2022. This Court vide order dated 04.09.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.28593 of 2023 disposed of the writ petition at the stage of admission by setting aside the impugned rejection order with a further direction to the Opposite Party No.4, i.e. Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer, Koraput, to reconsider the application of the Petitioner by apply the O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990 and in terms of the judgment referred to in the order dated 04.09.2023.

¶26

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, further contended that the application of the Petitioner has once again

¶27

Page 2 of 5.

¶28

been rejected vide order dated on 13.08.2024 under Annexure-9. By referring to the rejection order under Annexure-9, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the application of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the income of the Petitioner is Rs.30,000/-, as has been indicated in the certificate issued by the Tahasildar having jurisdiction over the area. He further contended that under a misconception of law, the Opposite Party No.4 has rejected the application of the Petitioner. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to the Gazette Notification dated 29^th December, 2008, contended that the G.A.&P.G. Department, Government of Odisha has amended O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990. Accordingly, the ceiling of income of the family which was earlier fixed at Rs.20,000/- has been amended and the same has been re-fixed at Rs.72,000/-. Thus, it was contended that the family is having less than Rs.72,000/annual income would be considered in a distressful condition and, accordingly, their applications shall be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. He further contended that the observation of the competent authority in the rejection order with regard to the dependents is also not based on any sound material. It is also contended that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa and others , reported in 2022(II) OLR (SC)-1, has not been understood and applied in its correct perspective. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned rejection order is unsustainable in law and,

¶29

Page 3 of 5.

¶30

accordingly, the same should be quashed.

¶31

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that after the matter was remanded by this Court vide order dated 04.09.2023 in W.P.(C) No.28593 of 2023, the Opposite Party No.4 has considered the case of the Petitioner and the application of the Petitioner has been disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order. He further contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the Petitioner on the ground as stated in order dated 13.08.2024 under Annexure-9. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed.

¶32

On a close scrutiny of the impugned rejection order dated 13.08.2024 under Annexure-9, this Court observes that a competent authority has considered the annual income of the Petitioner’s family to be Rs.30,000/-. Accordingly, by applying the Rules-2(a)(iv) of O.C.S. (R.A.) Rules, 1990, the application of the Petitioner has been rejected.

¶33

In contrast, this Court observes that the aforesaid rule has been amended in the year 2008 by virtue of the Gazette Notification dated 29^th December, 2008 and the annual income ceiling has been raised to Rs.72,000/-. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the competent authority has not taken note of the amended ceiling that has been prescribed by the State Government. In such view of the matter, this Court is

¶34

Page 4 of 5.

¶35

of the view that the impugned rejection order dated 13.08.2024 under Anexue-9 is unsustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.4 to consider the application of the Petitioner as has been directed vide order dated 04.09.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.28593 of 2023 under Annexure-8 within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order.

¶36

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

¶37

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶38

Debasis

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 03-Apr-2025 19:43:28

¶41

Page 5 of 5.

Anil Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Sahu 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

Achyutananda Mishra Vs Deoranjan Kumar Singh,Ias

Manish Thakur Vs Manoj Satyawan Mahajan,Ias

Tapeswari Thakur Vs Manoj Satyawan Mahajan,Ias

Rashmiranjan Patsani Vs Govt of India

Saumendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha

K. Jagga Rao Vs Union of India