IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.42526 of 2023 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

………………

Sachipati Panda …. Petitioner -versus-

State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. S.B. Mohanty, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA PRESENT:

THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

Date of Hearing:20.01.2025 and Date of Judgment:20.01.2025 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. Heard Mr. S.B. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt.

Advocate for the State.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 01.11.2022 so passed by O.P.

No.1 under Annexure-16. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of appointment under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme was rejected.

3. It is contended that petitioner’s brother while in service died on 23.05.1997. On the death of his brother who was unmarried at the relevant point of time, petitioner made his application under Annexure-2 on 08.07.1999 with a prayer to provide him appointment under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. It is contended that the said application was not only entertained but also referred to the Collector for issuance of the distress certificate vide letter dated

19.07.1999 under Annexure-4.

3.1. It is also contended that in the meantime Govt. in the General Administration Department issued a notification on 06.09.1999 under Annexure-5, holding therein that, brother of unmarried government servant who was fully dependent on such government servant at the time of death, is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.

3.2. It is contended that on the face of the entertainment of the petitioner’s application and the notification issued under Annexure-5, claim of the petitioner when was not considered with passing of an appropriate order, he approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2329(C) of 2010. The Tribunal vide order dated 02.08.2010 under Annexure-9, when held that claim of the petitioner is time barred and accordingly did not entertain the claim, challenging such order passed by the Tribunal, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.13498 of 2010.

3.3 This Court vide order dated 03.01.2014 under Annexure-10, permitted the petitioner to make a fresh representation before O.P. No.3 for consideration of his grievance. It is contended that in terms of order dated 03.01.2014, though petitioner made a detailed grievance but the same when was not considered, petitioner approached this Court once again by filing W.P.(C) No.10602 of 2020. This Court vide order dated 04.06.2020 under Annexure-15, disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Opp. Party No.3 to take a decision on the representation made by the petitioner in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court on 03.01.2014 under Annexure-10.

3.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the face of such successive orders passed by this Court under Annexure-10 and Annexure-15, claim of the petitioner was rejected relying on the amended provisions i.e. OCS(R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020 and on the other ground that, petitioner being the brother of the deceased employee, is not coming within the definition of family as provided under Rule-2(b) of the OCS(R.A.) Rules, 1990 and the Notification under Annexure-5 to that effect was only issued on 06.10.1999 i.e. after the death of the deceased employee.

3.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the face of the order passed in the earlier Writ Petition and the fact that petitioner’s brother while in service died on 23.05.1997, the amended provisions under OCS(R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020, cannot be made applicable to the case of