Ankita Sahani Vs the Secy, Panchayat Raj Dept, Bbsr

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

“Under the circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a rule Nisi calling upon the opposite party (ies) to show cause as to why the order at Annexure - 17 dated 10.02.2023 and Annexure-21 dated 23.02.2024 shall not be quashed and in the event that it is quashed direct the opposite party (ies) to pass an appropriate order(s) granting the benefits of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance of the

¶18

Page 1 of 4.

¶19

Government of Odisha;

¶20

And further be pleased to pass any other order(s) as deemed fit and proper;”

¶21

It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the father of the Petitioner, namely, Rama Kanta Sahani, who was working as Ex-PEO in Khajuripada Block, died in harness on 29.12.2014. She further contended that after the death of her father, the Petitioner with the consent of other legal heirs applied for a job on compassionate ground under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. However, due to the inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties, such application could not be considered. As a result, the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.23953 of 2023. This Court vide order dated 09.08.2023 disposed of the said writ application thereby specifically directing the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the application of the Petitioner in the light of the law laid down of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2022(II) OLR (SC)1 & State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others Etc. reported in 2023 (III) SCALE 557 .

¶22

In course of her argument, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that after disposal of the earlier writ application, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Parties by filing a representation on 31.08.2023. She further submitted that such representation has been rejected vide order dated 23.02.2024 taking the very same ground on which it was rejected earlier. Further, it is alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 has not taken a note of the order dated 09.08.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.23953 of 2023. On such ground, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection

¶23

Page 2 of 4.

¶24

order under Annexure-21 is unsustainable in law and that the same is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that pursuant to order dated 09.08.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.23953 of 2023 under Annexure-18, the Opposite Party No.2 has taken a decision. She further contended that in the event the Petitioner feels aggrieved by such order dated 23.02.2024, it is open to the Petitioner to challenge the same. However, she further contended that in view of the G.A. & P.G. Dept. Notification dated 05.11.2016 as well as the subsequent notification, the case of the petitioner is not covered under the OCS(RA) Rules, 1990. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 has not committed any illegality in rejecting the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-21 to the writ application.

¶26

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 further on a close scrutiny of the impugned rejection order dated 23.02.2024, this Court observes that the same has been rejected mechanically without considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Malaya Nanda Sethy ’s case (supra) & Debabrata Tiwari ’s case (supra). On a careful examination of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Malaya Nanda Sethy ’s case (supra) 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), the Rule-6(9) of the OCS(RA) Rules, 2020 has been held ultra vires. Therefore, the application of the Petitioner was pending since 2015 should have

¶27

Page 3 of 4.

¶28

been considered by taking into consideration the fact that the law is well settled that all applications made prior to the date on which the new rule came into the force are required to be considered under the old rule i.e. OCS(RA) Rules, 1990. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the order dated 23.02.2024 under Annexure21 is not in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside the order dated 23.02.2024 under Annexure-21. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the matter afresh by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Malaya Nanda Sethy ’s case (supra) 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) within a period of three months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order by the Petitioner. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.2 be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of taking such a decision.

¶29

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

¶30

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶31

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶32

Anil

¶33

Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4. Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Feb-2025 15:13:09

Ankita Sahani v. the Secy, Panchayat Raj Dept, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankita Sahani v. the Secy, Panchayat Raj Dept, Bbsr

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

Manash Kumar Mallik Vs State of Odisha