Rejection of claims under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme based on technicalities rather than substantive merits violates principles of fair and sympathetic consideration.

JUDGMENT :

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dt.28.08.2023 so passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-11. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme was rejected.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that, Petitioner’s father while working in the establishment of Tahasildar, Champua-Opp. Party No.3, he died on 27.10.2010, so available under Annexure-2. After such death of the deceased employee, wife of the deceased employee made the application in the prescribed format to get the benefit of appointment on 25.02.2011 under Annexure-4.

4.1. It is contended that such application filed by the mother of the Petitioner was not only entertained but also processed. But pursuant to the letter issued by Opp. Party No.3 on 26.03.2012 under Annexure-B/3, Petitioner’s mother made a fresh applications and on receipt of the same, not only Collector-Opp. Party No.2 enquired into the matter, but also vide letter dt.27.11.2017 under Annexure-6, remitted the application to Opp. Party No.3 for taking further action in the matter.

4.2. It is contended that on the face of such letter issued under Annexure-6 on 27.11.2017, further action was not taken in providing appointment to the Petitioner’s mother, as in the meantime, Petitioner’s mother had already made an application on 12.04.2016 under Annexure-5, with a prayer to consider the claim of the present Petitioner for getting the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. It is contended that when no action was taken on the request made by the Petitioner’s mother under Annexure-5, Petitioner moved Opp. Party No.2 on 07.09.2018 under Annexure-7 inter alia with a request to consider his claim to get the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Scheme in place of the wife of the deceased employees.

4.3. It is contended that claim of the Petitioner when was not considered, he approached this court by filing W.P. (C) No.17672 of 2023. This Court vide order dt.22.06.2023 under Annexure- 10, directed opp. Party No.2 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit under OCS (R.A.) Rules, 1990. However, such claim of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dt.28.08.2023 under Annexure-11, inter alia on the ground that Petitioner never made the application and such an application was only made on 27.08.2023, basing on the order passed in W.P.(C ) No.17672 of 2023.

4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since after the death of the deceased employee on 27.10.2010, Petitioner’s mother made the application within the stipulated time period under Annexure-4 and such application was processed all through and vide letter dt.27.11.2017 under Annexure-6, the matter was remitted to Opp. Party No.3 for taking further action, but no action was taken in providing appointment to the Petitioner’s mother, in view of the letter issued on 12.04.2016 under Annexure-5. Vide the said letter, Petitioner’s mother made a request to Opp. Party No.3 to consider the claim of the Petitioner in place of her.

4.5. It is further contended that such request made by the Petitioner’s mother under Annexure-5, when was not considered, Petitioner made a representation before Opp. Party No.2 on 07.09.2018. Such application of the Petitioner when also was not considered, he approached this Court in W.P. (C) No.17672 of 2023 and this Court vide order dt.22.06.2023 under Annexure-10, directed Opp. Party No.2 to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim. But such claim of the Petitioner has been rejected on the groun