Orissa High Court
Sambit Ray vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 4 September, 2023
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C)(OAC) No.856 of 2018
Sambit Ray .... Petitioner
Mr. B. Pujari, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
Mr. R.N. Mishra, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
04.09.2023 Order No
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. B. Pujari, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:-
"(i) To quash the letter of the Respondent No. 1 bearing No. HFW-MSNG-III-R.A.-60/2015-23601-H dated 8.10.2016 under Annexure-13.
(ii) To direct the Respondents to give appointment to the applicant under O.C.S. (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 within a specified period.
(iii) And to pass such order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
// 2 //
4. It is submitted that on the death of the Petitioner's father on 04.03.2010, who was working as a Sr. Clerk -cum- Assistant Store Keeper, the Petitioner made his application for his appointment under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme before Opp. Party No. 3 on 28.02.2011. On receipt of the application from the Petitioner, Opp. Party No. 3 asked the Collector to provide distress certificate of the family members of the deceased Govt. servant and the Collector forwarded the distress certificate vide Annexure-6 by indicating that the Petitioner's family has got no source of income.
4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that thereafter, when Petitioner was directed to provide the medical unfit certificate of his mother, the same was also provided after the Petitioner's mother was declared unfit by the CDMO, Cuttack on 06.10.2015. Even though, everything was complied with, but O.P. No. 1 rejected the claim of the Petitioner vide the impugned communication dtd.08.10.2016 under Annexure-13 on the ground that the spouse of the deceased employee was eligible to make the application and the Petitioner as the 2nd legal heir is not eligible. It is also submitted that the grounds on which the claim of the Petitioner was rejected 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).
4.2. It is submitted that in the said 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 is eligible to make such application. It is also Page 2 of 4 // 3 // submitted that since the Petitioner complied with all the requirements and the distress certificate was also issued in his favour along with the medical unfit certificate declaring the wife of the deceased employee is not fit for any kind of Govt. job, the claim of the Petitioner should not have been rejected on the ground indicated in the impugned communication at Annexure-13.
5. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned AGA on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that since the wife of the deceased employee was very much available and was fit for Govt. job at the time of application, the claim of the Petitioner being the 2nd legal heir of the deceased employee is not entertainable and accordingly no illegality has been committed by the O.P. No. 1 in rejecting the same.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. Perused the materials available on record. This Court after going through the same finds that the grounds on which the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected is not sustainable in view of the reported decision of this Court as cited (supra). This Court also finds that the application submitted by the Petitioner was not only entertained, but also was duly processed and recommended to the O.P. No. 1 for appropriate action.
6.1. In view of such steps taken in the matter, the claim of the Petitioner should not have been rejected. In any view of the matter, this Court finds that the Petitioner's claim has been illegally rejected and accordingly this Court is inclined to quash the said rejection available at Annexure-13 so far as it relates to the Petitioner. 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 Page 3 of 4 // 4 // accordance with the Rule prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee by following the decision in the case of Malayananda Sethi Vs. State of Odisha & Ors.. Such a fresh decision shall be taken within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. The writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and directions.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2023 11:23:12 Page 4 of 4