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

2024 Supreme(Ori) 514

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.
Sandeep Kumar Ghadei S/o Late Dilip Kumar Ghadei – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government of Odisha Department of Commerce & Transport (Commerce) – Respondent
WPC (OAC) No. 4126 of 2016
Decided On : 12-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Manoj Kumar Panda, S.R. Nayak, Ganjan Sabar
For the Respondent: Ajodhya Ranjan Dash

A son of a deceased government employee is eligible for compassionate appointment under the Odisha RA Rules if the spouse is unfit for work.

Headnote:(A) Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 - Section 2(b), Section 3, and Section 4 - Appointment under RA Rules - Rejection of appointment application due to availability of spouse - Court held that if spouse is certified unfit for work, son can apply under RA Rules - Authority's rejection deemed arbitrary as per medical evidence provided. (Paras 14-19)

(B) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Jurisdiction of High Court for hearing cases transferred from the Tribunal.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, son of deceased Government employee, sought employment after father's death while mother was deemed unfit for Government service. His application for compassionate appointment was rejected based on RA Rules, which was contested in court.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner is entitled to challenge the rejection; the reasons cited by the government were found insufficient and arbitrary. Court directed reassessment of the application considering medical evidence.

Issues: Whether a son can be considered for a compassionate appointment under the RA Rules when the spouse is alive but unfit for work.

Ratio Decidendi: The provisions of the RA Rules allow consideration of a son for employment when the spouse, despite being alive, is unfit for government work, hence not a barrier to the son's claim.

Result: The decision rejecting the application was quashed; the petitioner’s case is to be re-evaluated within four months.

Table of Content
1. facts surrounding rejection of appointment application. (Para 1 , 2)
2. opposition response indicating legal grounds for rejection. (Para 3 , 4)
3. petitioner’s arguments against the rejection based on ra rules. (Para 6 , 7)
4. court's observations on prior cases and ra rules interpretation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
5. deeper interpretation of terms in ra rules as affecting case. (Para 12 , 13)
6. legal conclusions leading to the decision of appointment eligibility. (Para 14 , 15 , 17)
7. final decision of the court and directives to consider the application. (Para 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.

THE CHALLENGE BY THE PETITIONER

1. Challenging the propriety and legality of decision rejecting the application for consideration of appointment under the provisions of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 communicated vide Letter No. PRE(N) 17/2015 (Pt.)— 5864/Com., dated 30.10.2015 of the Under Secretary to Government of Odisha in Commerce and Transport (Commerce) Department as at Annexure-7 and Letter No. Estt. Sec-1, 59/2014— 3112/PSP, dated 19.11.2015 issued by Director, Directorate of Printing, Stationery & Publication, Odisha, Madhupatna, Cuttack (Annexure-8), the petitioner, son of the deceased Government employee, came up before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by way of filing application invoking provisions of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, registered as O.A.No.4126 (C) of 2016.

1.1. After abolition of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by virtue of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) Notification F. No. A-11014/10/2015-AT [G.S.R.552(E).], dated 2nd August, 2019), the said case having been transferred to this Court, O.A. No. 4126 (C) of 2016 has been re-registered as WPC (OAC) No. 4126 of 2016.

FACTS AS ADUMBRATED BY THE PETITIONERS

2. The petitioner, on the death of his father, died in harness on 16.12.2012 while working as driver in the Office of Director, Printing, Stationery & Publication, Odisha, made an application on 26.03.2013 for consideration of appointment under the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (for brevity, “RA Rules”), for Smt. Santilata Ghadei, the wife of the deceased employee, Late Dilip Kumar Ghadei, was found unfit to undertake Government job certified by the Standing Medical Board convened on 01.10.2013 vide Letter No. 6358, Berhampur, dated 03.10.2013 issued by the Chief District Medical Officer, Ganjam, Berhampur (Annexure-3 series).

2.1. The Director, Directorate of Printing, Stationery and Publication, Odisha vide Memo No.1854, dated 28.03.2014 having requested the Collector, Cuttack to submit report regarding the financial status of the petitioner, after due enquiry being conducted, distress certificate in favour of the petitioner was furnished to the opposite party No.2-Director vide Letter No.2747/Gen. &Misc., dated 05.08.2014.

2.2. The said report along with other necessary and relevant documents being sent to the Government, the application for appointment under the RA Rules came to be rejected on 30.10.2015 by the Government of Odisha in Commerce & Transport (Commerce) Department citing that the claim is contradictory to the provisions of Rule 2(b) of RA Rules, as the mother of the petitioner is still alive/available for appointment.

2.3. Questioning the legal sanctity of decision taken to reject the application and asserting that such decision is beyond the weight of evidence on record, the petitioner moved the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack for ventilation of grievance under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which has travelled to this Court for final adjudication.

REPLIES OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES TO THE CONTENTS OF THE WRIT PETITION

3. Having admitted the fact of Standing Medical Board declared Smt. Santilata Ghadei, mother of the petitioner unfit to undertake Gover

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