Mano Ranjita Behera Vs the Chairman and Md, Nalco

This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners Mano Ranjita Behera and Reshma Behera for considering the appointment of petitioner No.2 under the compassionate appointment or rehabilitation scheme available for the Central Government Employee Public Sector Rules.

¶14

The factual scenario as depicted in the writ petition indicates that the husband of the petitioner No.1, who is also father of the petitioner No.2, namely, Mohan Behera was an employee under the opposite parties and he was discharged from the service by the opposite parties. By the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, New

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

Delhi, by order dated 19.10.2011 the opposite parties were asked to reinstate Mohan Behera in service. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuance to the order passed by the Commission, the opposite parties although offered him to join the service by for a fixed tenure with the salary less than his original salary. That has created mental agony, therefore, he could not join the services. After 6 years Mohan Behera gave a representation, which was rejected by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 09.09.2017.

¶17

Mohan Behera then filed O.A. No.625 of 2017 challenging the letter dated 09.09.2017 passed by the opposite parties rejecting the representation of Mohan Behera in taking into service, as it was filed after six years before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack and after the death of Mohan Behera, OA was withdrawn by the present petitioners.

¶18

Parallelly the petitioners had also filed O.A. No.820 of 2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack which was disposed of by the tribunal by observing that in case there is any suitable vacancy arose in NACLO and advertised for the same, the petitioner may apply and if any application is made by the petitioner no.2 and if she is found eligible for such post, the same may be considered by the opposite parties-authorities along with other candidates.

¶19

In the present writ petition, challenge has been

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

made to the order dated 06.10.2021 passed in O.A. No.346 of 2017 in which the learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application which was filed challenging the refusal of the opposite parties to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner No.2, who is the daughter of the ex-employee( Mohan Behera) on the ground that it is not permissible under the provision of NALCO rehabilitation scheme.

¶22

Learned counsel for the opposite parties has filed counter affidavit and placed the scheme for compassionate appointment which is annexed as Annexure-C/1 to the counter affidavit which inter alia states that the employment on compassionate ground will be considered only on accidental death cases. The benefit of the scheme is only applicable to the family of the employees expired during the course of his employment, which is described under the category of “ arising out of and in course of employment ” as per the provision of Workman’s Compensation Act.

¶23

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that since the father of the petitioner No.2 was not an employee under the opposite parties and he was discharged from the service and in spite of the order of the Commission to reinstate him service, he did not join the service, therefore the scheme of compassionate appointment is not applicable to him, as he ceased to be an employee since 2011. That’s the

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

reason the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack has rejected the O.A, which is just, proper and well within the parameters of law.

¶26

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and going through the scheme as formulated by the opposite parties under the heading of “ Employment on compassionate ground ”, we find that the father of the petitioner No.2 being ceased to be an employee after he abandoning the offer to join service since 2011, the petitioner is not covered under the scheme, particularly after the O.A. which was filed by the ex-employee, the father of the petitioner No.2 was withdrawn from the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, there remained no employee, employer relationship existed between the father of the petitioner and NALCO. Therefore there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.346 of 2017.

¶27

Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

( S.K. Sahoo)

Judge

(S.S. Mishra)

Signature Not Verified Judge

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior StenographerAshok/Swarna Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Jul-2025 11:11:36

¶33

Page 4 of 4

Mano Ranjita Behera v. the Chairman and Md, Nalco

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mano Ranjita Behera v. the Chairman and Md, Nalco

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binod Chandra Rath Vs State of Odisha

Paresh Kumar Parida Vs Chairman Life Insurance Corporation Housing Finance Ltd., Mumbai

Jitendra Routray Vs a.O.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., Chennai

Sangram Keshari Mishra Vs Chairman,Odisha Gramya Bank

Birsumanti Sunita Dora Vs M/S Welcon Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Bbsr

Management of Sanjay Memorial Institute of Technology Vs State of Orissa