Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Kamalakant Jal ..... Opposite Party on 23 November, 2021
Author: B.R. Sarangi
Bench: B.R. Sarangi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET (RPC) No.45 OF 2019
State of Odisha ..... Petitioner
Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty,
Advocate
Vs.
Kamalakant Jal ..... Opposite party
Mr. S.K.Pradhan, Advocate
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
23.11.2021 Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
012. Heard Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. S.K. Pradhan, learned counsel for the opposite party.
3. The opposite party had approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by filing O.A. No.2311(C) of 2016 seeking direction to consider his case for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme after death of his father, who died while serving as a Government servant, which was rejected by the petitioner vide order dated 13.06.2016.
4. The opposite party specifically contended that his father had entered into Government Service as Agriculture Officer on 17.11.1980 and died in harness on 22.05.2013. Consequentially, the opposite party filed an application for appointment under rehabilitation Assistance Scheme as per provisions contained in Rule-2(b) of the OCS (RA) Scheme, 1990. The said application was forwarded by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Subarnapur and in turn the Director, Agriculture and Food Production, Odisha also forwarded the same to the Government. After following due formalities as required under 2 Rule, the Collector & District Magistrate, Subarnapur had also issued Distress Certificate in favour of the opposite party. The Director, Agriculture and Food Production, Odisha forwarded all the necessary documents to the Government enclosing the original affidavit of No Objection Certificate of the mother of the opposite party and attested copy of No Objection Certificate of other legal heirs of the deceased Government employee indicating no objection to the appointment of the opposite party under OCS (RA) Scheme 1990. However, upon instructions the mother of the opposite party appeared before a Medical Board for medical test to determine her health condition as per requisition of Deputy Director of Agriculture, Subarnapur. The doctors opined that she was suffering from severe hypertension, RA and severe visual defect for which she was found to be not fit for service. After considering all the aspects, the Tribunal vide order dated 04.08.2017 quashed the order dated 13.06.2016 passed by the Government rejecting the application of the opposite party and directed the Government to give appointment to the opposite party under OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order.
5. The order dated 04.08.2017 passed by the Tribunal was challenged before this Court by the State by filing W.P.(C) No.10137 of 2018 and this Court vide order dated 28.03.2019 disposed of the said writ petition permitting the petitioner-State to approach the Tribunal by filing a review petition along with an application for condonation of delay within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of the order and in such event, the Tribunal shall take into consideration all the contentions raised by the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law and while considering the prayer for condonation of delay, the Tribunal shall also take into consideration the period of pendency of the writ petition i.e from 18.06.2018 till that date. Consequentially, the present review petition has been filed.
36. In paragraph-7 of the review petition, it has been stated as follows:
"That the Revenue and Disaster Management Department Govt. of Odisha vide their letter No.20780 dtd. 02.05.2012 had issued clarification regarding appointment under RA Scheme exclusively to Heads of Department of their control. But OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 and its subsequent amendments if any has been formulated by G.A. Department and published in Gazette Notification for its applicability, by all Departments and its sub-
ordinate Offices. Further, it is to submit here that as per Revenue Department clarification that "in case if a family member lying at a higher order of preference in terms of Rule-2(b) of OCS (RA) Rules-1990 becomes ineligible/unfit for appointment under RA Scheme due to illness/illiteracy or lack of minimum educational qualification or overage then, the case of a member lying at a lower order of preference can be considered subject to condition that necessary supporting documents are submitted for such reason. But in the instant case though the wife of the deceased lying at the Highest order of preference had submitted supporting documents i.e. the medical board certificate in respect of her illness and she was also of over aged as per legal heir certificate as well as given her consent thereof by virtue of affidavits, but the next legal heir of the deceased Durgamadhab Jal aged about 32 years has not submitted authenticated documents showing reason for non submission of application by him. Though he was living with his in-laws house separately from the family of his deceased father previously, he had not produced the separation deed to that effect as per point No.4 of Revenue Department letter. Further it is to submit that as per Rule-9(7) of OCS (RA) Rules-1990, if there is a ward of the deceased, who is minor and alone available in the family at the time of death of the deceased he shall apply under these Rules on or after attaining the age of 18 years and in no case beyond 3 years from attaining the age of 18 years. In the present case the applicant being a ward of the deceased was neither miner by that time nor was he the only surviving member in the family of the deceased. The deceased had other three wards besides the applicant and one of them was senior to the applicant in age."
7. On perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the State before the Tribunal, it appears that the same pleas have been taken in paragraph-7 of the review petition. The Tribunal having considered the same has passed the order impugned. Therefore, there is no question of reconsideration of the said order passed by the Tribunal by way of filing review petition by the petitioner- State. As such, no ground for review is made out. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the review petition and the same is dismissed.
Alok (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE 4