AKASH PUTEL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the legality and propriety of Order dtd. 25/2/2019 passed in Original Application being No.1001 of 2017 by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, vide Annexure-6, wherein by Letter No.AGR-SCFE-FE-0015-2016- 16691/Ag., dtd. 5/10/2016 (Annexure-5) issued by the Under Secretary to Government, Government of Odisha in Department of Agriculture and Farmers' Empowerment communicating refusal of appointment of Sri Akash Putel, son of Late Gelha Kumar Putel, ex-peon in the Office of the Project Director, Watersheds-cum-Deputy Director, Soil Conservation, Balangir, under the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (for brevity referred to as 'RA Rules'), has been affirmed, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts, as adumbrated by the petitioner, reveal that at the time of death of his father, namely Gelha Kumar Putel, working as peon in the Office of the Project Director, Watersheds-cum-Deputy Director, Soil Conservation, Balangir, on 3/7/2008, he was minor of around 12 years. Since Smt. Subagini Putel, wife of late Gelha Kumar Putel was around 44 years at that point of time, and suffering from different ailments, she nominated the name of her son, present petitioner, for employment under the RA Rules on his attaining age of majority and accordingly, she made a request to the aforesaid Project Director on 16/3/2009.

(3.) Sri Bhabani Shankar Rayaguru, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being son of deceased employee died in harness while in Government service, falls within the scope of definition of the term 'family members' enumerated in Rule 2(b) and thereby he was eligible for applying in terms of provisions in Rule 8 read with Rule 9(7) of the RA Rules. In the presence of clear language of Rule 9(7), on attaining majority, as his mother being not fit for taking up job, the petitioner has applied for appointment which was duly recommended by the Commissioner-cum-Director, Watershed Mission to the Government for according administrative approval. Instead of approving such recommendation, on flimsy ground, the Government should not have refused employment to the petitioner who was to look after his ailing mother and grandmother. The approach of the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal was pedantic while acceding to the stand of the Government. It ought to have applied its judicious mind by appreciating the fact that the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father and he, having attained majority on 5/5/2013, applied for compassionate appointment by duly filled-in application in Form Annexure-A appended to Rule 1(a) of the RA Rules on 22/8/2013. Hence, there was no delay in approaching the authority as stipulated under Rule 9(7) which fact was considered by the Commissioner-cum-Director of Watershed Mission, who suggested for condonation of the delay. For the sake of argument but not conceding that though there was no delay in making application for consideration of compassionate appointment as per sub-rule (7) of Rule 9, said Commissioner was correct in his suggestion to condone the delay on the underlying principle contained in substituted sub-rule (11) of Rule 9 by virtue of the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2010.