Orissa High Court
Rajesh Mahakul vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 8 May, 2023
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.C(OAC) No.2049 of 2018
Rajesh Mahakul .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Pradhan,Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order 08.05.2023
No
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and S.K. Samal, learned AGA appearing for the opp. parties.
3. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
<i) To quash the impugned order dt.23.04.2016 as at Annexure-10
(ii) To direct the Respondents to appoint the applicant in the post of Jr. Clerk or in any other suitable post under Rehabilitation and Assistance Rules, 1990 within a time frame.=
4. It is contended by Mr. S.K. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the Petionier that on the death of the petitioner's father on 17.05.2013, who was working as Khalasi(Work Charged) in the office of the M.I. Division, Sambalpur, under Opp. Party No.4, the // 2 // Petitioner made an application for his appointment under the provision of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme as against a suitable post as her mother was medically unfit for any kind of job.
4.1. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that since the mother of the petitioner was suffering from various diseases, petitioner having the requisites qualification for the post Jr. Clerk submitted his application along with all documents within time before Opp. Party No.4 vide Annexure-3 series for appointment under OCS (RA) Scheme. It is contended that after receiving the application, Opp. Party No.4 directed the mother of the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board for examination of her health for compliance of Rule2(b) of the OCS (RA) Scheme. It is also contended that the Medical Board found the mother of the petitioner incapable to perform any kind of Govt. Job and the Medical Board also communicated the said fact to the mother of the deceased employee as well as Opp. Party No.4 vide Annexure-5 . Pursuant to the letter of Opp. Party No.4 vide Annexure-6, Collector, Sambalpur issued distress certification in favour of the Petitioner. 4.2.
After receiving the distress certificate, Respondent No.4 submitted the R.A proposal of the petitioner along with documents before the Opp. Party No..3 for further action in the matter and subsequently Opp. Party No.3 forwarded the proposal and the application along with the required documents as well as the brief note Page 2 of 5 // 3 // regarding vacancy in the post of Jr. Clerk to the Opp. Party No.2 for necessary action in the matter. It is also contended that Opp. Party No.2 after receiving the application along with documents forwarded the application of the petitioner for appointment to the Opp. Party No.1 for kind consideration and order.
4.3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that after three years of receipt of application, Opp. Party No.1 rejected the application of the petitioner for appointment as Jr. Clerk under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme vide letter dt.23.04.2016 under Annexure-10 on the following grounds
(i) R.A proposals submitted by the sons/daughters when the spouse of the deceased Govt.employees were available.
(ii) Cases which medical certificates declaring the spouses medically unfit for Govt. job has been issued much after submission of application.
(iii) R.A proposals pending prior to 2000.
(iv) Proposals pending for long period without complete information.
4.4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Opp. Party No. 1 in an absolutely casual manner and without applying his mind rejected the Petitioner's claim for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme vide letter dated 23.04.2016 under Annexure-10 4.5. It is submitted that the ground on which the claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide letter dated Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 23.04.2016 under Annexure-10 is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court reported in the case of Ajit Kumar Barik Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (2018 (II) OLR P-10).
4.5. It is submitted that in the aforesaid reported decision it has been held that <Family Members= as defined under Rules 2(b) of the OCS (R.A.) Rules, 1990 are eligible to make their application and there is no hard and first rule that only wife/husband of the deceased Govt. employee as eligible to make such application. It is also submitted that since the Petitioner complied with all the requirements and filed the no objection certificate in his favour along with the medical certificate declaring the wife of the deceased employee is not fit for Govt. job, the claim of the Petitioner should not have been rejected.
5. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned AGA on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that the Petitioner had not submitted any medical fitness certificate of his mother at the time of application though she was available for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in order of preference. It is also contended that as the Petitioner being the 2nd legal heir has bypassed the preference without any proper justification, his case has been rightly rejected.
06. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the materials available in the Page 4 of 5 // 5 // record and the decision as cited (supra) by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court finds that the Petitioner's claim has been illegally rejected and accordingly this Court is inclined to quash the said order of rejection available at Annexure-10. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to O.P. No. 1 to take a fresh decision in the matter, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malayananda Sethi Vs. State of Odisha. On such reconsideration, if the Petitioner is found otherwise eligible, steps be taken to provide him appointment under the provisions of R.A. Scheme. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order.
08. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and directions.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: Authentication of order Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-May-2023 19:09:16 Page 5 of 5