MOHINI KUMAR NAIK Vs. ORISSA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the widow of one Brajananda Naik, who was in the employment of Orissa State Electricity Board (shortly called 'the Board') as helper. He died on 5 -11 -1989. The petitioner applied for appointment to the post of peon under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. As no order was passed, she approached this Court by filing the present petition on 3 -4 -1991. By an order passed on 16 -8 -1991, opp. party No.2 was directed to duly and favourably consider the application of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders within a month. In that order, reference was made to the views expressed by the Apex Court in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1976, and Phoolwati v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 469, to the effect that appointment on compassionate ground due to the death of the bread earner in the family should be provided immediately and if there be no suitable post for appointment, supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.

(2.) OPP . party No. 2 disposed of the application of the petitioner on 13 -9 -1991 by stating that her claim for appointment could not be considered under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. A perusal of that order, which is at Annexure -A, shows that three reasons have been ascribed to reject the application, namely; (i) the Board has imposed ban on new recruitment to the posts of unskilled category, as stated in Annexure -B dated 15 -2 -1984; (ii) there was no vacancy in the post of peon in the Division for which post the application had been made ; and (iii) twelve other similar applications were awaiting consideration for appointment in the post of peon under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.

(3.) IN so far as the second ground is concerned, which is absence of vacancy in the post of peon in the Division in question, Shri Nayak contends that the Rehabilitation Scheme itself states in paragraph 2 that the benefit under it would be admissible subject to availability of suitable vacancy. It is, therefore, urged that the second ground given for rejection of the application of the petitioner is cogent. In this con -text, Shri Misra submits that appointment under the Rehabilitation Scheme cannot be made dependent upon availability of suitable vacancy. The learned counsel draws our attention in this connection to the aforesaid two decisions of the Apex Court wherein it was stated that if there be no suitable post for appointment, supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. As to the aforesaid decisions, Shri Nayak contends that the Rehabilitation Schemes under which employment was solicited in those cases were different inasmuch as there is nothing to show that appointment under those schemes depended upon availability of vacancy.