PRAKASH CHANDRA NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA
LAWS(ORI)-2021-3-10
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on March 05,2021

Prakash Chandra Nayak Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ODISHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Biswanath Rath,J. - (1.) This writ petition involves the following prayer :- In view of the above and settled position of law, it is prayed, therefore that this Hon ble Court may graciously be pleased to ; i) Admit the writ petition and; ii) Issue RULE NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the impugned order of rejection vide No.2317 dated 22.01.2021 at Annexure9 and order vide No.8553 dated 8.4.2016 at Annexure-6 so far as it relates to petitioner shall not be quashed and as to why the petitioner shall not be appointed in any post commensurate to his qualification under O.C.S.(R.A.), Rules, 1990 w.e.f. his due date; iii) And if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the rule may be made absolute against Opposite Parties and a writ of mandamus may be issued to the Opposite Parties in quashing the impugned order of rejection vide No.2317 dated 22.01.2021 at Annexure9 and order vide No.8553 dated 08.04.2016 at Annexure-6 so far as it relates to petitioner with direction upon the O.Ps. to appoint the petitioner in any post commensurate to his qualification under O.C.S.(R.A.), Rules, 1990 w.e.f. the due date within a stipulated period of time. iv) Pass such other order(s), direction(s) as deem fit and proper to the facts and circumstances of the case to give complete relief to the petitioner;
(2.) Undisputed fact involves death of the deceased employee taken place on 9.1.2014. Finding harness and the sole bread-earner dying in the family, the Petitioner being the only son put up an application for rehabilitation assistance appointment on 3.6.2014 appearing at Annexure-3. Further undisputed fact remains vide Annexure-4, on 3.3.2015 the Executive Engineer, Nimapara Irrigation Division forwarded the application of the Petitioner for consideration for rehabilitation assistance appointment. There also remains vide Annexure-5, there is already a recommendation in favour of the Petitioner by the competent authority for providing appointment since 25.3.2015. It is in the above view of the matter, while bringing to the notice of the Court that for coming to know that there has been rejection of the case of the Petitioner involving such appointment, the Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.3563 of 2020, which matter appears to have been rejected on the ground of prematureness in the Writ Petition but however, in disposal of the Writ Petition this Court directed the competent authority, O.P.2 therein to take decision on the application of the Petitioner at least within a period of one and half months from the date of communication of the order. In the meantime, a Contempt Petition has also been filed. Based on repeated directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3563 of 2020 as well as CONTC No.3224 of 2020, pursuant to which ultimately there appears though the Competent Authority took a decision on the request of the Petitioner but with a rejection order, vide Annexure-9.
(3.) Taking this Court to the rejection order at Annexure-9, Sri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that there being no restriction to provide appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Rules, 1990 to any of the family members requiring simply a no objection from the other legal heirs, rejection of the request of the Petitioner on the premises that in the availability of spouse in absence of valid reason, there is no scope for providing employment under such Scheme to anybody other than the spouse becomes bad. It is in this view of the matter, Sri Mishra prayed for setting aside the order at Annexure-9 and issuing suitable direction.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.