Decided on March 16,2021

Laxmipriya Tripathy Appellant


Biswanath Rath,J. - (1.) This writ petition involves the following prayer: "Under the above circumstance, it is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by quashing the communication made by the opposite party no.4 dated 19.05.2020 vide Annexure-13 to the writ application and directing the opposite parties to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the approval of appointment made by the appointing authority on 27.11.2019 in the post of Jr.Clerk/Jr. Asst. under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme within a stipulated period. And for this act of kindness, as in duty bound, the petitioner shall ever pray."
(2.) Sri D.N.Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the impugned order at Annexufe-13 on the premises that when the petitioner being an applicant made application for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme vide Annexure-3 on 30.12.2015 involving death of her husband on 06.09.2015 and her application was forwarded for consideration under Annexure-6 in the year 2016 further there is also recommendation of the case of the petitioner after due verification for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme at Annexure-11, under the provision of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, as amended in 2016, there was no question of asking the petitioner again to apply under Rule 2020, a rule which was not even in existence when the death of the employee occurred and also when the application was made for the particular purpose. It is in the circumstance, a claim is made for interfering in the letter at Annexure-13 and setting aside the same. Sri Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Damodar Jena Vs. Chairman-cum- M.D., Grid Co.Ltd. and Ors , 2015 2 ILR(Cut) 569 being confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.11 of 2015.
(3.) Sri H.M.Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State however in his opposition submitted that even though the case of the petitioner was considered depending on the rule existed in the year 2019 but, however, for the introduction of new rule in the meantime, there might be application of new rule and thereby justifies the action of authority asking the petitioner to apply under the new rule i.e. OCS (RA) Rules, 2020.;

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