The rejection of the petitioner's claim for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme was not sustainable in view of the reported decision of the court and the relevant legal provisions.

JUDGMENT

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. - This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard Mr. Ramnath Acharya, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. A.P. Das, learned ASC appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

'In view of the facts mentioned above the applicant prays for the following relief:-

i) The order dated 8.4.2016 of the Government under Annexure-11 may kindly be quashed so far as the applicant is concerned.

ii) The order dated 5.5.2016 issued by the Executive Engineer, Mahanadi Barrage Division under Annexure-12 be quashed.

iii) The respondent Nos.1 & 2 be directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment under R.A. Scheme within a stipulated period.

iv) And/or may kindly also grant any other relief and/or reliefs which your Lordship think deem fit and proper for the benefit of the applicant.'

4. It is submitted that on the death of the Petitioner's father on 03.03.2010 while working as Store Choukidar at Mahanadi Barrage Division, Cuttack, the mother of the Petitioner made an application for her appointment under the provision of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on 23.09.2010.

5. It is submitted that on such death of the deceased Govt. employee the wife of the deceased employee though filed the application before the Superintending Engineer, Drainage Circle, Gandarpur for her appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, but she was not willing to work due to continuous illness and filed an application before the Authority to wait till the present Petitioner attains the age of 18 years for his appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.

6. It is also submitted that the Petitioner on attaining the age of 18 years of age made an application before the Superintending Engineer, Drainage Circle, Cuttack though the Asst. Executive Engineer for his appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme enclosing various documents as desired by the Authority under Annexure-4 on 18.04.2013.

7. It is submitted that O.P. No. 4 vide letter dt.03.07.2013 under Annexure-5 forwarded the required information/materials for further action to the Superintending Engineer, Drainage Circle, Cuttack. The Superintending Engineer, Drainage Circle, Cuttack after receiving the application of the Petitioner along with connected documents forwarded the same to the O.P. No. 2 for consideration of appointment of the Petitioner as a Peon under OCS (R.A.) Scheme vide letter dtd.05.08.2014 under Annexure-6.

8. It is submitted that subsequently on being requested by O.P. No. 3- Collector, Kendrapara also issued the distress certificate vide Annexure-8 and on receipt of the same, O.P. NO. 4 forwarded the proposal to O.P. No. 2 vide Annexure-9.

9. It is also submitted that O.P. No. 2 thereafter forwarded the matter to O.P. No. 1 for consideration of the Petitioner's claim vide letter dtd.08.05.2015 under annexure-10. But after keeping the matter pending, O.P. No. 1 rejected the claim vide his order dtd.08.04.2016 under Annexure-11 and the said fact was intimated to the Petitioner vide Annexure-12.

10. It is also submitted that the grounds on which the claim of the Petitioner was rejected is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court reported in the case of Ajit Kumar Barik Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (2018 (II) OLR P-10).

11. It is submitted that in the said reported decision it has been held that 'Family Members' as defined under Rules 2(b) of the OCS (R.A.) Rules, 1990 are eligible to make their application and there is no hard and first rule that only wife/husband of the deceased Govt. employee is eligible to make such application. It is also submitted that since the Petitioner complied with all the requirements and wife of the deceased employee is unfit for the Govt. job due to her illness, the claim of the Petitioner should not have been rejected on the ground indicated in the impugned communication at Annexure-11. But