Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Sunita Barik And Another on 12 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 1518 of 2024
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
Mr. Bimbisar Dash, Additional Government Advocate
-versus-
Sunita Barik and another .... Respondents
Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 12.11.2024
I.A. No.3850 of 2024
04. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. This application has been filed by the appellants-State of Odisha seeking condonation of delay of 555 days in preferring the present intra-court appeal.
3. Upon notice, Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, learned counsel has appeared for the respondents by filing his Vakalatnama.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, we are of the opinion that a case is made out for condoning the aforesaid delay.
5. Accordingly, the delay of 555 days in filing the writ appeal stands condoned. The I.A. stands disposed of.
Page 1 of 3 W.A. No.1518 of 20246. The State of Odisha has put to challenge an order dated 21.10.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC (OAC) No.671 of 2017, operative portion of which reads as under:
"11. In view of such steps taken in the matter, the claim of the Petitioner should not have been rejected. In view of the matter, this Court finds that the Petitioner's claim has been illegally rejected and accordingly this Court is pleased to quash the said rejection available at Annexure-7 so far as it relates to the Petitioner and consequential order at Annexure-6. While quashing the same, this Court directs the O.P. No.1 to take appropriate step in the matter and take a fresh decision in accordance with the Rule prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malayananda Sethi vs. State of Odisha. Such a fresh decision shall be taken within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. If on such recommendation, the Petitioner is found eligible, necessary order of appointment be issued within the above said time period."
7. It is apparent from the impugned judgment/order that the appellants have been directed to consider the respondents' case for appointment on compassionate ground, taking into account the Rules prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malayananda Sethi v. State of Odisha: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684.
8. In view of the submissions advanced at the Bar, we make it clear that in this case, the dispute over applicability of the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (in short 'the Page 2 of 3 1990 Rules') and the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 (in short 'the 2020 Rules') does not arise, since it appears to be an admitted case that the respondents' father died when the 1990 Rules were in force and the application for rehabilitation appointment was also made and rejected before coming into force of the 2020 Rules. The said question is left open for being decided in an appropriate case.
9. In view of the above discussion, we do not consider it necessary to interfere with the impugned order.
10. We accordingly dispose of the writ appeal with the aforesaid observation.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice (Savitri Ratho) Judge S. Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Nov-2024 12:29:40 Page 3 of 3