The court underscored the need for re-evaluating rehabilitation assistance applications under amended provisions, ensuring that procedural delays do not infringe on applicants' rights, particularly for minors.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The petitioner’s late father Saroj Kumar Karal, who was working as Sheristadar in the Civil Court, Jharsuguda and he expired on 27.01.2016. The present petitioner filed an application seeking appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on 21.08.2018. The committee constituted under the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2016 examined the case of the petitioner and on evaluation, awarded 55 points out of 100 points. The committee was of the view that the application filed by the petitioner suffers a delay of 2 years, 7 months of the death of his father. As per sub-rule (6) of Rule-9 of the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, the application ought to have been filed within one year from the date of death of the Government servant. In the exceptional cases, the limitation prescribed under sub-rule may be condoned by the Government in the concerned administrative department. Eventually, vide order dated 07.03.2020 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda, the application of the petitioner has been turned down on two grounds, which is found mentioned in the penultimate paragraph of the order itself. For convenience of ready reference, the grounds of rejection read thus:

“(i) The application has not been filed on the stipulated period as per Rule-9 of sub-rule (6). Further in this case, there is a delay of more than 12 months.

(ii) The applicant has not passed the test in Oriya equivalent to any standard as per Rule-6(4)(d) of the Orissa District and Sub-ordinate Courts Non-judicial Staff Services (Method of Recruitment and Condition of Service), Rules, 2008 as amended in 2010.”

The Petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned District Judge. Hence, he has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking following reliefs:

i) To quash the impugned order dtd. 07.03.2020 (Annexure-6) of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda.

ii) To direct the Opp. Parties to appoint the petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in accordance with Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule 1990 in any post on compassionate ground within a time limit considering his application.

2. Heard Mr. Umakant Sahoo, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jayant Kumar Bal, learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite party.

3. The principal issue highlighted by learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar is that two reasons for which his application has been turned down by the opposite party are completely misplaced. However, at this stage, he prefers not to embark upon those issues in view of the recent amendment brought in the Rule.

He further submitted that the petitioner was a minor at the time of the death of his father and as per Rule-9(7) of the Odisha District and Subordinate Court's Non Judicial Staff Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008 (Amendment Rules, 2010), which stipulates that:

"If at the time of death of the Government servant, there is ward who is minor and who alone is available in the family of the deceased Government servant for employment, he/she shall apply for job under these rules on attaining the age of eighteen years and in no case beyond three years from the date of attaining the age of eighteen years."

The father of the Petitioner, namely, Saroj Kumar Karal, who was Ex-Sheristadar of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Jharsuguda, died on 27th January, 2016, and the application of the Petitioner was filed on 21st August, 2018. Hence, it is contended that the application was filed within the extendable time.

Fur