The court established that administrative delays in processing applications for compassionate appointments violate the principles of timely assistance, reinforcing applicants' entitlements even amidst procedural changes.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by order dated 23.03.2022 (signed on 17.03.2022) passed by Chief District Veterinary Officer, Sambalpur (opposite party No. 2) in holding him ineligible for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father was working as Veterinary Trainer (VT) under Sub- divisional Veterinary Officer, Kuchinda (opposite Party No. 3) and died in harness on 03.11.2014. He left behind his widow, a daughter and a son (petitioner). A family being plunged in financial distress upon death of its only earning member, the widow wanted to apply for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme but in a Medical Board conducted by the CDMO, Sambalpur on 04.03.2015, she was declared unfit to join in Government Job as she was suffering from DM and HTN with CKD. The petitioner therefore, applied before the Opposite Party No. 3 for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme which was forwarded to the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services (Opposite Party No.1) on 11.03.2015. Be it noted that the petitioner’s mother and sister also submitted affidavit stating that they had no objection to the appointment of the petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. On 30.12.2017, the Opposite Party No. 3 issued a letter to Opposite Party No. 2 forwarding the relevant documents of the petitioners. Again on 28.08.2018, Opposite Party No. 3 resubmitted the documents to Opposite Party No.

2. On 06.11.2018, Opposite Party No. 2 called upon Opposite Party No. 3 to submit certain documents for finalisation of the matter. Pursuant to such letter, Opposite Party No. 3 resubmitted the entire documents to Opposite Party No. 2 along with letter dated 26.02.2019. On 12.06.2020, the Opposite Party No. 2 wrote to the petitioner asking him to resubmit his application along with necessary documents. The petitioner submitted the necessary documents by letter dated 07.01.2021. Ultimately by order dated 23.03.2022, the Opposite Party No. 2 rejected the application of the petitioner by holding that he had not secured the required points for being eligible for such appointment. Said order is enclosed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition and is impugned.

3. Heard Mr. G. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Das, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

4. Mr. Sahu would argue that the Opposite Party authorities are guilty of gross delay in considering the application of the petitioner and in the process frustrated the chance of the petitioner for being appointed under the OCS(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990. Mr. Sahu, further argues that the petitioner cannot be blamed for the delay. If his application had been considered promptly at the relevant time, he would have secured a Class-III post in view of the qualification possessed by him. However, the authorities despite being guilty of gross delay and latches have denied the benefit to him by considering his case under the OCS(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020. Mr. Sahu has cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malayananda Sethy vs. State of Odisha & Others reported in (2022)2 OLR 1 (SC) in support of his contentions.

5. Per contra, Mr. Das, learned State counsel submits that delay cannot be a ground to ignore the prevailing rule since it is specifically laid down in the new Rules that all existing applications are to be considered under the said Rules. The petitioner’s application could not therefore, have been considered under the old Rules. Moreover, the petitioner himself caused delay in submitti