SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ori) 557

ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Manasi Das @ Sahoo – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and others - Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No. 23204 of 2016
Decided On : 22-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. C. Kasturi
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. G.N. Rout (ASC), Mr. S.K. Sahu.

Legally divorced daughters qualify as 'family members' under the amended Rehabilitation Rules, ensuring entitlement to compassionate appointment is based on current eligibility norms.

Headnote:(A) Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020, - Definitions of 'family member' including legally divorced daughters - Petitioner, a legally divorced daughter of the deceased employee, claimed appointment under Rehabilitation Scheme following rejection based on 1990 Rules - As per amended Rules, the entitlement for appointment must be considered under norms applicable at the time of the application. (Paras 3, 4, 8, 9)

(B) Compassionate appointments - The court emphasized the need for just and timely consideration of applications for compassionate appointments to achieve the purpose of the policy in helping bereaved families. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, daughter of a deceased Class-IV employee, challenged the rejection of her representation for appointment under the Rehabilitation Scheme, arguing her eligibility as per the amended Rules of 2020, which include divorced daughters. (Paras 1, 2)

Findings of Court:
The Court allowed the petitioner to file a fresh representation for appointment under the amended Rules, directing the authorities to consider the request sympathetically within a stipulated time. (Paras 10)

Issues: Whether the petitioner qualifies as a 'family member' under the current Rehabilitation Scheme and the need for timely consideration of compassionate appointments. (Paras 2, 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the amended rules should be applied retroactively to ensure that entitled individuals are not deprived of their rights due to previous definitions and emphasized timely consideration for compassionate appointments to avoid frustration of intent. (Paras 7, 9)

Result: Writ Petition disposed of, allowing for a fresh representation.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's background and prior attempts to seek appointment. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding the inclusion of divorced daughters in the definition of family members. (Para 3 , 4)
3. opposition's argument on previous rules and rejection of the petitioner's representation. (Para 5 , 6)
4. key judgments on compassionate appointments referenced regarding application consideration. (Para 7 , 8)
5. court's observation on the rejection based on valid rules. (Para 9)
6. final order allowing the petitioner to file a new representation. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT :

S.K. MISHRA, J.

1. The Petitioner, who is the daughter of late Golekh Chandra Das, who died while working as a Class-IV employee under the Cuttack Municipal Corporation (CMC), Cuttack, on 8th March, 2002, has filed this Writ Petition with a prayer to quash the Order dated 25th April, 2015, vide which her representation for appointment under the Rehabilitation Scheme was rejected and to direct the Opposite Parties to give her appointment under the Rehabilitation Scheme or on compassionate ground to save her life, so also life of her ailing mother.

2. Admittedly, because of non-consideration of the case of the Petitioner, she approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.18074 of 2014, which was disposed of at the stage of admission on 20th October, 2014 directing the Opposite Party No.3- Corporation to consider the representation of the Petitioner. On being so directed, the Opposite Party No.3 rejected the representation of the Petitioner dated 13th March, 2014 by Order dated 25th April, 2015 on the ground that the Petitioner, being a divorced daughter, is not coming under the category of “family member” of the deceased employee and it is not possible to accede to the request made by the Petitioner.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner files the Notification dated 17th February, 2020, vide which the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020, shortly, the Rules, 2020, was brought into force in exercise of power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. She submits that sub-Rule (d) of Rule (2) under the said Rules, 2020 defines ‘family members’ means and include the legally divorced daughter also. For ready reference, relevant portion of Rule (2) of the said Notification dated 17th February, 2020 is extracted below:

2. Definitions:- (1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires-

(a) xxx

(b) xxx

(c) xxx

(d) “family members” means and include the following members,-

(i) Spouse of the deceased Government servant.

(ii) Sons or step sons or sons legally adopted through a registered deed executed before the death of the Government servant.

(iii) Un-married daughters and Un-married step daughters.

(iv) Widowed daughters or daughters-in-law residing permanently with the family of the deceased Government employee.

(v) Legally divorced daughter

(e) xxx

(f) xxx

(g) xxx

(h) xxx

(i) xxx

(j) xxx”

(Emphasis supplied)

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in terms of the said amendment Rules, 2020, which is in vogue, Petitioner is entitled for appointment under the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020. She fairly admits that at the relevant time of filing application, the status of the Petitioner was “legally divorced daughter” as her client was legally divorced by her husband vide judgment dated 24th February, 2014 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, in Civil Proceeding No.721 of 2011, which has been annexed to the Writ Petition as Annexure-5. She further submits that in view of the recent ruling of the apex Court, her client’s case deserves to be considered in terms of the Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020. To substantiate her submission, Ms. Kasturi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on the judgment of the apex Court in the case of N.C. Santhosh v. State of Kartnataka & Ors., reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 .

5. In response to the said argument advanced by Ms. Kasturi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top