Manash Kumar Mallik Vs State of Odisha

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

¶16

The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer :

¶17

“Therefore the petitioner most respectfully prays that

¶18

Your Lordship would graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for the relevant records and after hearing may be pleased to:-

¶19

(i) direct the Opp. No.4 to dispose of the representation/ Annexure -7 in light of the mandate of the Honorable passed in the case of Biswajit Swain vrs State of Odisha and others

¶20

(ii) Direct Opp.party No.2 to issue appointment order in

¶21

Page 1 of 4.

¶22

favor of the petitioner as per the provisions of Rule 1990 OCS (Rehabilitation Assistant) as extended to other applicants standing in similar footing.

¶23

(iii) And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as it would be deemed fit and proper to the facts and circumstances of the case in order to provide complete justice to the petitioner.”

¶24

It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the mother of the Petitioner died in harness on 08.05.2016 while she was in govt. service. Thereafter, the present Petitioner applied for a job on compassionate ground under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 on 26.11.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture contended that the aforesaid application has been filed within the limitation as stipulated under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. However, the authorities has not taken any action on such application although, many similarly situated persons have been given appointment under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. He further contended that being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the opposite parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

¶25

In course of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner further referring to the judgment of this Court by a Division Bench in Bindusagar Samantaray vs. State of Odisha & ors. in W.A. No.810 of 2021 decided on 25.09.2023, contended that the provisions of Rule-6(9) has been laid down. It was also contended that the judgments of this bench in Biswajit Swain vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 decided on 31.10.2023, this Court has declared the provisions contained in Rule-6(9) of the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020 as ultra vires. In such view of the matter, learned

¶26

Page 2 of 4.

¶27

counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Opposite Parties are under a legal obligation to consider and dispose of the pending application of the Petitioner in terms of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990.

¶28

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that as is evident from the writ application that no decision has been taken on the application of the Petitioner dated 26.11.2016. Therefore, she will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Parties to dispose of the application of the Petitioner under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 dated 26.11.2016 in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful consideration of their submission as well as the background facts of the present case and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1 as well as by this Court in Biswajit Swain ’s case (supra) and by a Division Bench of this Court in Bindusagar Samantaray ’s case (supra), this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application by directing the Opposite Party No.4 to consider the application of the Petitioner dated 26.11.2016 within a period of three months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order by the Petitioner keeping in view the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy ’s case (supra) as well as this Court in Biswajit Swain ’s case (supra) and by a Division Bench of this Court in Bindusagar Samantaray ’s case (supra) as has been referred to hereinabove, in the event the application of the Petitioner dated 26.11.2016 is still pending. Further, it is directed that the application dated 26.11.2016 shall be disposed of by passing a

¶30

Page 3 of 4.

¶31

Anil

¶32

speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.4 be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of taking such a decision.

¶33

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶34

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶35

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶36

Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4.

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Feb-2025 15:13:09

Manash Kumar Mallik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manash Kumar Mallik 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

Bharati Bisi Vs Principal Secy, Forest, Environment and Climate Change Dept., Odisha, Bbsr

Sujit Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Abinash Tarai Vs State of Odisha

Kailash Naik Vs State of Odisha

Satrughan Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Ankita Sahani Vs the Secy, Panchayat Raj Dept, Bbsr