Orissa HC Urges State to Exclude Certificate Procurement Time from Compassionate Appointment Limitation

BHUBANESWAR, ODISHA – In a significant judgment reinforcing the welfare objective of compassionate appointments, the Orissa High Court has strongly recommended that the State Government exclude the time taken by legal heirs to obtain essential documents, such as death and legal heir certificates, from the limitation period for submitting such claims. The Court, presided over by Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad, emphasized that the law cannot expect a person to perform an impossible act, invoking the legal maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia .

The ruling came in the case of Rasmita Nayak v. State of Odisha & Ors. , where the petitioner’s application for a compassionate appointment, filed following her father's death in 2010, was rejected after more than a decade on the grounds that it was time-barred. The Court quashed the rejection order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, holding that the very purpose of such rules is rooted in compassion, which must be the "substratum or undercurrent" in their interpretation.

---

Background of the Case: A Decade-Long Ordeal

The petitioner, Rasmita Nayak, is the daughter of a peon who passed away in service on December 22, 2010. Seeking rehabilitation assistance, she submitted her application for a compassionate appointment on September 10, 2011, well within the prescribed limitation period at the time.

However, her application became mired in procedural delays. The college's Governing Body forwarded the application only in April 2013, which was then sent to the Collector for the issuance of a mandatory distress certificate. The process was further complicated by an objection filed by the deceased employee's widow.

Despite these procedural hurdles, which were largely outside the petitioner's control, her application was ultimately rejected on August 3, 2021. The authorities cited Rule 7(5) of the Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020, to declare the application time-barred. This was a critical point of contention, as the 2020 Rules were applied retrospectively to a claim that originated in 2010, when the 1990 Rules were in effect. Aggrieved by this rejection, Ms. Nayak approached the High Court.

The Impossibility of 'Contemplating Death'

At the heart of the Court's reasoning was the logical and practical impossibility of obtaining necessary certificates before the employee's death. Justice Shripad observed that documents like Death Certificates, Legal Heir Certificates, and Distress Certificates are prerequisites for a valid compassionate appointment application. However, these can only be applied for after the employee has passed away.

“It hardly needs to be stated that these certificates cannot be applied for in contemplation of death of employee in harness,” the Court noted. “It is only after the death, the cause of action for applying these certificates would arise.”

The judgment highlighted the cumbersome and time-consuming nature of procuring these documents from various authorities, each operating under different statutes. The process often involves public notices, hearings for rival claimants, and other quasi-judicial steps that inevitably consume considerable time.

Holding that an applicant cannot be penalized for these inherent delays, the Court invoked the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia . “A person cannot be asked to perform the impossible, in the sense that he should obtain all these certificates within the prescribed limitation period,” Justice Shripad stated. “Unless these certificates are produced, the application for compassionate appointment will be incomplete and therefore suffers rejection. Law does not expect anyone to do the impossible.”

Drawing Analogical Wisdom from the Limitation Act

While acknowledging that the Limitation Act, 1963, does not directly apply to claims under the Rehabilitation Assistance (RA) scheme, the Court drew a powerful analogy from its provisions. Justice Shripad pointed out that the Limitation Act contains several sections that explicitly provide for the exclusion of time taken to obtain certified copies of judgments, orders, and decrees when calculating limitation periods for appeals and other legal proceedings.

The Court suggested that the state should adopt a similar, pragmatic approach for compassionate appointment claims. “Although, these provisions are not applicable to RA Claims, analogical wisdom can be drawn from them,” the bench observed. This reasoning forms the basis of the Court's formal request to the State Government to consider amending its rules to ensure that bereaved families are not unjustly deprived of their rights due to procedural delays beyond their control.

Compassion Must Be the Guiding Principle

The Court underscored the fundamental nature of the rules in question, reminding the state that they are intended to provide immediate relief to families who have lost their sole breadwinner.

“More often than not, such Rules are rightly called Compassionate Appointment Provisions and therefore, while construing their provisions, compassion should be the substratum or undercurrent,” the judgment reads. “Otherwise, the State will not bring Welfare Governance which the Constitution of India ordains.”

The Court also admonished the authorities for retroactively applying the 2020 Rules to reject a 2010 claim, a move it viewed as contrary to principles of fairness and justice.

Strict Directives and a Warning to Officials

In allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the rejection order dated August 3, 2021, and remanded the petitioner’s application to the state for a de novo consideration.

Setting a strict timeline, the Court directed that a decision be made within three months from the date of the order. In a strong move to ensure compliance and administrative accountability, the Court added a penal clause: if the state fails to act within the stipulated period, the concerned officer will be held personally liable to pay the petitioner Rs. 500 per day for each day of delay.

This judgment is a significant pronouncement on administrative law and the interpretation of welfare legislation. It not only provides relief to the petitioner after a decade-long struggle but also sets a strong persuasive precedent for how limitation clauses in compassionate appointment schemes should be interpreted across the state, urging a shift from a rigid, procedural approach to one guided by empathy and justice.