IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO.21882 of 2014 (In the matter of application under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India).

Subasini Kar and another … Petitioners -versus-

The Orissa Mining Corporation … Opposite Parties Limited, Bhubaneswar and another For Petitioners : Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K. Muduli, Advocate CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING :25.02.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:03.03.2025 G. Satapathy, J.

1. The petitioners by way of this writ petition have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by praying to quash the impugned order under Annexure-7 and to direct the OPs to issue appropriate order of appointment in favour of the petitioner No.2 upon consideration of the application made by them under Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (in short, “the Rules”).

By an order dated 22.03.2014 passed by the Chairman-cum-MD, Odisha Mining Corporation Limited (OMC) at Annexure-7 has refused to consider the representation of the petitioners for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.

2. The facts in nutshell are that one Pramoda Kumar Bahinipati, who was the deceased son of petitioner No.1 and deceased brother of petitioner No.2 was working as a Light Motor Vehicle driver in Barbil Region under OMC having joined in the service on 19.05.1993 and while working as such, he died on 18.12.1997 in harness due to an accident arising out of and in course of his employment. Since late Pramod was then a bachelor and the petitioners were being dependent on him, the petitioner No.1 approached the OMC for engagement of petitioner No.2 when he attained majority on 15.09.1998, either in place of his deceased son or against any other job in the Corporation, but due to inaction of OP-OMC, the petitioners had filed OJC No.13439 of 2000 which was disposed of on 19.04.2004 with a direction to OPNo.2- MD, OMC to dispose of the application of the petitioners strictly in consonance with law and rules governing the field. However, the application of the petitioners was rejected on three grounds; (i) for limitation, (ii) for petitioner No.2 not coming within the meaning of family in terms of Rules and (iii) lastly, for application not coming under the category of deserving case. This led the petitioner to once again approach this Court in W.P.(C) No.1903 of 2005, which was disposed of by this Court on 24.01.2014 with an observation that in case the petitioners files a fresh application along with all the relevant documents before OPNo.2, the same shall be considered sympathetically. Accordingly, the petitioners moved an application before the authority-OPNo.2, but OPNo.2 rejected the application of the petitioners on 22.03.2014 compelling the petitioners to approach this Court again in the present writ petition. It needs to be stated here that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner No.1 died and her name deleted.

3. In the course of hearing of the writ petition, Mr. Aditya Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the rules has submitted that although the petitioners were wholly dependent on the deceased, who died in the harness while working in the course of his employment under the OMC, but OPNo.2 is avoiding to issue an order of appointment in favour of petitioner No.2 on one or different pretext despite direction from this Court, which led the petitioners to continue to litigate for a job even after 28 years of the death of the deceased. It is further submitted that the unmarried brother of the deceased Government Servant, who was wholly dependent on such Government Servant at the time of death is coming within the meaning of family members so as to get compassionate appointment, but the authority ignoring such fact has refused to give appointment to petitioner No.2. It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra that after refusal of the representation of the petitioners under