(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the communication dated 26.7.2012 passed by the Government in Agriculture Department under Annexure-12 series rejecting his application for compassionate appointment and further seeking for a direction to consider his case for compassionate appointment within a stipulated time.
(2.) The fact in nutshell is that the petitioner's father Late Bijay Kumar Mania was working as a Driver (L.V.) on regular basis under the opposite party No. 2 and during the course of his employment, in a motor accident, he died prematurely on 31.8.2005. The petitioner, who is one of the legal heirs of the deceased-employee, applied for grant of compassionate appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme applicable to opposite party No. 2. He filed such application on 1.8.2006, i.e. within one year from the date of death of the deceased employee as per rules. The said application being not in proper form, the opposite party No. 2 by letter dated 9.3.2009 (Annexure-7) communicated a letter to the petitioner to apply in prescribed Form-A as required under Rule (1)(a) of the O.C.S. (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his application in Form-A. On receipt of the prescribed application, the opposite party No. 2 vide letter 15.5.2009 under Annexure-8 requested the Collector and District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur to cause enquiry regarding the financial status of the family of the deceased employee and to give a report. On the basis of the letter under Annexure-8, the Collector & District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur caused an enquiry on the financial status of the family of the deceased employee and by letter dated 9.11.2009 communicated the distress certificate to opposite party No. 2. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 recommended the case of the petitioner for approval of administrative department vide letter dated 31.12.2009 under Annexure-10. Again as per the requirement of the opposite party No. 1, the petitioner submitted all the original documents for necessary verification. Since no action was taken, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C) No. 21690 of 2011. On considering the said petition and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court by order dated 19.4.2012 disposed of the said writ petition directing the opposite party No. 1 to take a decision on the recommendation/proposal for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. Pursuant to such order of this Court, though the opposite party No. 1 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner supplied the application form seeking appointment under the scheme for the prescribed period of one year, did' not communicate the same to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made necessary application under the Right to Information Act seeking information regarding the action taken in his case. In response to the said application, the opposite party No. 2 provided information under Annexure-12 series, whereby his claim for rehabilitation assistance has been rejected by the opposite party No. 1 vide letter dated 26.7.2012 on the ground that the application was filed at a very very belated stage, which is in contravention of Rule 9(6) of the Odisha Civil Services (R.A.) Rules, 1990. Challenging such rejection of his claim, the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Mr. Biswajit Mohanty-3, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground on which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected is not sustainable in view of the fact as per Rule 9(6) of the Odisha Civil Services (R.A.) Rules, 1990, the petitioner made the application within one year from the date of death of the deceased employee. He further submits that because of the premature death of the deceased employee, the family is in drastic economic ruination and unless compassionate appointment is made to mitigate the immediate hardship, family will suffer irreparably.