Dibyajyoti Dani Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶21

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

¶22

“ It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court would be graciously pleased to: ISSUE RULE NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why an appropriate writ in the nature of

¶23

Page 1 of 5.

¶24

Certiorari/Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/writs or order/orders or direction to be issued against the Opposite Party to quash the Annexure-14 and direction be given to appoint the applicant in any Group ‘C’ post as per his qualification under OCS(RA) Rules, 1990. Further be pleased to direct the respondents to give all financial and consequential service benefits to the applicant on the event of his appointment under OCS(RA) Rules, 1990, or any other relief as the applicant may deem fits and if the Opposite Parties fails to show cause or show inadequate or false cause, make the aforesaid rule nisi absolute.

¶25

And/or order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in order to provide the Petitioner complete relief.”

¶26

It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the father of the Petitioner namely, Ramani Ranjan Dani joined in the Office of the Assistant Engineer, Main Dam Division, Burla on 02.04.1982. While working as such died in harness on 09.06.2014. Thereafter, the Petitioner being one of the legal heirs, with the consent of other legal heirs, submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground under OCS(RA) Rule, 1990. He further contended that in his application, he has also submitted a certificate issued by the C.D.M.O., Sambalpur on 05.12.2014 under Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition. Further, referring to the certificate under Annexure-4, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that

¶27

Page 2 of 5.

¶28

the mother of the present Petitioner, who is the widow of the deceased Government employee was found unfit to perform strenuous work and she was not fit for any official job. He further contended that despite such fact being a part of the record and supported by the medical certificate, the Opposite Party No.1 rejected the application of the Petitioner vide order dated 23.05.2023 under Annexure-14 to the Writ Petition. Further, referring to the aforesaid rejection order, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the application of the Petitioner has been rejected by referring to the OCS(RA) Rule, 2020 and G.A. & P.G. department Notification dated 17.02.2020. In the aforesaid context, the learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the decisions in Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1, Suchitra Bal v. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 & batch decided on 27.06.2023 Biswajit Swain v. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 decided on 31.10.2023 contended that law with regard to the aforesaid issue is no more res integra . In respect of the applicability of the Rules to the legal heirs of the deceased Government employee for considering their case for appointment on compassionate ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that in Biswajit Swain’s case ( supra ) this Court has already declared the provisions of Rule 6(9) of the OCS(RA) Rule, 2020 to be ultra vires of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. In such view of the matter, the decision of Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-14 to the Writ Petition is highly illegal and arbitrary and as such the same is unsustainable in law.

¶29

Page 3 of 5.

¶30

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that the case of the Petitioner was duly considered by the Opposite Party no.1. He further contended that since the Petitioner was not found eligible under the OCFS(RA) Rule, 2020, his case has been rightly rejected by the Opposite Party no.1. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the impugned rejection order under Annexure-14 does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶31

On a careful examination of the impugned rejection order dated 23.05.2023 under Annexure-14, this Court observes that the case of the Petitioner, although was considered by the Opposite Party no.1, however by taking note of the OCS(RA) Rules, 2020 as well as the G.A. & P.G. Department Notification dated 17.02.2020 and further keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C.Santosh v. State of Karnataka and others (2020) 7 SSC 617, the case of the Petitioner has been rejected. At this juncture, this Court would like to observe that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the provision of OCS(RA) Rule, 2020 and G.A.& P.G. Department Notification dated 17.02.2020 were taken note of while deciding the larger issue involved in the present case. While considering the aforesaid fact, both Division bench as well as Single Bench has come to a conclusion that in the event the Government employee has died prior to the date when the new Rule came into force and the application was pending while the new Rule came into force, the application of the applicant shall be considered under the OCS(RA) Rules, 1990. Although the State-Opposite

¶32

Page 4 of 5.

¶33

Parties have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a SLP against the aforesaid decisions, however, no interim order has been granted in such case. In such view of the matter, since provisions of Rule 6(9) of the OCS(RA) Rule, 2020 has been declared ultra vires in Biswajit Swain’s case, this Court is bound to follow the law laid down in the said case. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the impugned order under Annexure-14 is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Further the matter is remanded to Opposite Party no.1 to reconsider the application of the Petitioner by taking into consideration the certificate under Annexue-4 and by applying the OCS (RA) Rule, 1990 within a period of three months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order by the Petitioner . The application of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order and the final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within 10 days thereafter.

¶34

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶35

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶36

RKS

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Page 5 of 5. Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Mar-2025 17:21:25

Dibyajyoti Dani v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dibyajyoti Dani 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

Legal Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Angul Vs Bharati Mohanty

Puspalata Mohanta Vs Shishir Kumar

D.M, United India Insurance Co. L.T.D. Vs Ashok Kumar Swain

Madhab Chandra Patra Vs State of Odisha

Rabindra Nath Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Jagan Lima Vs State of Odisha