JUDGMENT

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. - This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard Mr. B.R.Barik, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A.P.Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner's father since died while in service in the year 2019 the petitioner made his application in the year 2019 for his appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. It is submitted that on receipt of the said application and after receipt of the distress certificate, though the claim of the petitioner was considered at different level, but no final decision was taken. It is submitted that even though the petitioner is otherwise eligible for his appointment under the provisions of the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, but the same was not considered and kept pending.

4. It is submitted that instead of deciding the claim of the Petitioner in accordance with the relevant provision as prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee, Petitioner was forced to make a fresh application pursuant to Annnexure-8.

5. It is further submitted that without considering the claim as per the rule prevalent at the time of death of the d