PRASANNA KUMAR DASH Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application has sought for quashing the order intimated through the letter dated 8.11.1995 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for appointment under the Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990.

(2.) THE father of the petitioner Late Hadibandhu Das was working as a Primary School Teacher in Mulabasanta Primary School under Kanas Block and expired on 13.11.1979 while in service, leaving behind the petitioner, two daughters and his widow. Though the father of the petitioner expired in November, 1979, the petitioner was a minor then and attained the age of 18 years on 12.6.1982. After attaining majority, the petitioner approached the authorities for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme ('the Scheme' for short) prevailing then. From 1982 till 1984 having run from pillar to post and having failed everywhere the petitioner made a representation on 19.2.1994 for appointment under the aforesaid Scheme. The widowed mother of the petitioner also made a representation on 31.8.1994 on the basis of which the prayer of the petitioner was taken up for consideration. The Additional District Magistrate, Khurda, made an inquiry with regard to the condition of the family of the petitioner and furnished a report stating that no member of the family of the petitioner has been given appointment on compassionate ground after the death of the father of the petitioner and the family of the petitioner has no immovable or moveable property nor they have any source of income to maintain their livelihood. In spite of such report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate, Khurda, the prayer of the petitioner was turned down on the ground that the Scheme has been made applicable with effect from 20th May, 1985 and therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered.

(3.) SHRI Rajen Mohapatra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the father of the petitioner expired on 13.11.1979 and the petitioner attained majority on 12.6.1982. Immediately after attaining majority, the petitioner had made two representations. one on 12.1.1983 and the other on 17.11.1983 within the period of five years from the date of death of his father. Therefore, even accepting the statement made in the counter affidavit that a representation has to be made within five years from the date of death, the case of the petitioner could have been considered. The learned Additional Government Advocate disputes about filing of the representations in 1983.