JUDGMENT :

S.N. Prasad, J.

The order dated 17.06.1999 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in Original Application No.1200(C) of 1989 has been assailed by the State of Orissa, whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal while allowing the Original Application directed the authorities to provide appointment to opposite party no.1 on compassionate ground.

2. The brief fact of the case, in brief, is that his father Late Sudhansu Sekhar Samal, who was working as a Peon in the office of the Block Development Officer, Nuapada, petitioner no.3 herein, expired on 18.11.1984 while in service and at that time, opposite party no.1 was only 7 year old. Opposite party no.1 after attaining majority in the year 1995 submitted an application before the Block Development Officer, Nuagaon for giving him appointment in Class-IV post on compassionate ground under the provisions of the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme floated by the State Government.

3. The main ground taken by the petitioner, State of Orissa is that under the Scheme there is no provision to maintain a live roster, i.e. no appointment can be provided to the dependent of the deceased employee if he is minor at the time of his death and further no appointment on compassionate ground can also be given after lapse of a fairly long period, which is contrary to the spirit of providing appointment on compassionate ground, but without taking into consideration these aspects of the matter, the learned Tribunal has passed an order directing the State authorities to provide him appointment on compassionate ground.

4. Opposite party no.1 has appeared and filed a detailed counter affidavit stating therein that he is entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. The competent authorities had recommended his case but the same has not been given effect to and as such, he has filed an application before the learned Tribunal. Taking into consideration his grievance, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned order directing the authorities to engage him on compassionate ground.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

6. Before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, it is relevant to have a discussion regarding the provision of Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 and on a bare perusal, we find that there is no provision to maintain a live roster. Keeping one post reserved for the dependent of the deceased employee awaiting his majority. We have further found from the Rehabilitation Assistance Rules that the State has formulated a scheme to provide appointment on compassionate ground taking into consideration the objective to provide succor from the immediate distress due to death of the sole bread earner. The word “immediate distress” is of paramount consideration and that is the spirit of providing appointment on compassionate ground under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, meaning thereby if the immediate relief will not be provided, the whole purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground will be frustrated for the simple reason that when the dependents of the deceased employee could be able to sustain their live fairly for a long period, then after sustaining for substantial period providing appointment on compassionate ground would have got no meaning. In this respect, it is relevant to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v State of Haryana and others, reported in (1994)4 SCC 138 wherein their Lordships have been pleased to observe as follows:

“As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or rel