JUDGMENT

S. PANDA, J. - Petitioner in this writ petition assails the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.375 (C) of 2016 wherein the Tribunal rejected the prayer of the applicant for engagement under Rehabilitation Assistance Rules by dismissing the original application.

2. Mr. B.K.Routray, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after the death of the father of the applicant who was a Government employee in the year 2002, the widow filed an application for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Rules (hereinafter referred to as Rules). The family was in a distress condition due to sudden death of the sole bread earner. The said application was kept pending for want of distress certificate from the competent authority which was issued in the year 2015 only. The widow in the meantime has suffered from serious ailment due to poverty and became unfit for any job. Thus, she made a representation to the appointing authority to consider engagement of her son in her place under the aforesaid scheme. However the appointing authority did not consider such representation. Due to such inaction the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P. (C) No.403 of 2016 which was withdrawn with a liberty to approach the appropriate forum. Accordingly the petitioner has filed the aforesaid original application before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack as under such circumstances there is no bar to consider the claim of the person who is at serial No. (ii) as preference No. (i) is unfit. However the Tribunal has rejected the prayer of the applicant without considering the aforesaid facts on its proper perspective and passed the impugned order. Hence the same is liable to be set aside.

3. The learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that since the appointment letter was issued in favour of the mother of the applicant and without joining the Class-IV post she has sworn an affidavit in favour of the present applicant showing her illness. Her appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Rules was rightly rejected by the Tribunal by impugned order considering the provision of Rule 9 (6) and 9 (7) of Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990. Hence the same need not be interfered with. He has further submitted that the Government in G.A. Department approved for appointment of the widow under the Rehabilitation Assistance Rules and accordingly appointment letter was issued vide letter dated 7.6.2016. Since she has not come forward to join the post, claim of the applicant has no merit.

4. The brief fact of the case is that one Biranchi Narayan Barik, the father of the applicant was appointed as a ‘Mali’, in the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar w.e.f. 4.3.1987. He died in harness on 5.8.2002 leaving behind his widow, two sons and one daughter. Thereafter the widow had applied for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Rules before the authority. The Registrar, Orissa Administrative Tribunal vide his letter dated 26.12.2002 had forwarded the application form and the copy of annexures to the Collector-cum-Dist. Magistrate, Cuttack to enquire into the matter and to furnish a distress certificate of the family members of the deceased Government employee. As no report was received from the Collector, Cuttack, the Registrar, Orissa Administrative Tribunal again issued another reminder vide letter dated 17.1.2015 to the Collector, Cuttack to furnish the report of finance distress condition of the family members of the deceased Government employee. In the meantime the mother of the applicant is suffering from chronic disease and the elder brother of the applicant is a mentally disabled person, she has made a representation to the Registrar, OAT to engage her 2nd son i.e. the present applicant in her place under the Rehabilitation Assistance Rules. The widow had filed an affidavit to the effect that her eldest