Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Ori) 414

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
Santosh Kumar Barik – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 26372 of 2022 (In the matter of an application under Article-226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.)
Decided On : 19-10-2022

Advocates appeared:
M/s.B.R.Barik, S.K.Parida, S.Patra & B.B.Pradhan., for the Appellant; Addl. Standing Counsel Mr. A.P.Das., for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the consideration of a claim under a scheme should be based on the rules prevalent at the time of the event (in this case, the death of the deceased employee), and the application of amended rules to a claim arising prior to the coming into force of such rules is illegal and violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme - Application of Amended Rules 2020 - [REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE SCHEME] - [Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020] - [Summary: The court discussed the application of the amended rules 2020 to the claim of the petitioner for his appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. The court referred to various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and held that the consideration of the claim relying on the amended rules 2020 was illegal and violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the Opposite Parties to consider the claim of the Petitioner as per the rules prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee, with a further directive to issue necessary appointment order if the Petitioner is found eligible. The entire exercise was to be completed within two months from the date of receipt of the order.]
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's father died while in service in 2019, and the petitioner applied for his appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. The claim was considered under the amended rules 2020, which the petitioner contested as the deceased employee died prior to the coming into force of the amended rules.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the consideration of the claim relying on the amended rules 2020 was illegal and violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the Opposite Parties to consider the claim of the Petitioner as per the rules prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee, with a further directive to issue necessary appointment order if the Petitioner is found eligible.
Issues: The main issue was the application of the amended rules 2020 to the claim of the petitioner for his appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, despite the deceased employee having died prior to the coming into force of the amended rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the consideration of the claim relying on the amended rules 2020 was illegal and violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. The court directed the Opposite Parties to consider the claim of the Petitioner as per the rules prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee, with a further directive to issue necessary appointment order if the Petitioner is found eligible.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and directed the Opposite Parties to consider the claim of the Petitioner as per the rules prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee, with a further directive to issue necessary appointment order if the Petitioner is found eligible. The entire exercise was to be completed within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

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 deceased employee, Opposite Party No.2 considered the same in accordance with the Amended Rules, 2020 and rejected the application vide the impugned order dated 01.03.2021 under Annexure-10.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that even though the deceased Government employee died prior to coming into force of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020, which came into force on the date of its publication of the Odisha Gazette i.e. 27.02.2020, but the case of the Petitioner instead of being considered as per the rules prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee was considered as per the 2020 amended rules and rejected vide the impugned order.

7. It is submitted that since the deceased employee died prior to coming into force of the aforesaid amended rules, 2020, the said rules should not have been applied to the case of the Petitioner and accordingly the claim should not have been rejected on that ground.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner first of all relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ashish Awasthi reported in (2021) (II) OLR-1072. In the said reported decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in a clear and categorical term observed that the policy prevalent prior to the death of the deceased employee is only to be considered and not the subsequent policy. Similarly, learned counsel for the Petitioner also relied on another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the case of Malayananda Sethi vrs. State of Orissa & Others reported in 2022(II) OLR SC-1. In the said reported decision Hon'ble Apex Court held that the appellant therein shall be entitled for his appointment on compassionate ground as per the rules involved at the time of the death of the concerned employee.

9. It is also submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malayananda Sethi, the appellant therein was provided with the appointment under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in the Department of Excise Vide Office Order No.2647 dated 16.06.2022.

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in another decision reported in the case of The Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) & Others vs. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa, after taking into consideration the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of,

(i) Canara Bank vs. M.Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412.

(ii) Indian Bank vs. Promila and Another (2020) 2 SCC 729.

(iii) MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh (2014) 13 SCC 583.

(iv) N.C. Santosh vs. State of Karnataka and Others (2020) 7 SCC 617.

(v) State Bank of India vs. Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571.

(vi) State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661.

(vii) State Bank of