BIBHUTI BHUSAN PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the son of the deceased employee, has filed this writ petition assailing the communication dated 04.11.2015 issued by the Joint Secretary to Government in Women and Child Development Department to the Collector, Dhenkanal-opposite party no.3 rejecting his application for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.

(2.) The father of the petitioner, Siba Narayan Pattanayak, who was working as Peon under the Women and Child Development Department, Government of Odisha in the office of C.D.P.O., Odapada, died prematurely on 27.06.2007. After obtaining death certificate on 23.07.2007 and legal heir certificate on 29.09.2007, wife of the deceased employee applied for compassionate appointment under the OCS (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 vide application dated 01.12.2007 before the Collector and District Magistrate, Dhenkanal. Subsequently, the Collector, Dhenkanal forwarded her application to opposite party no.2-Child Development Project Officer, Odapada for consideration. While her application was pending, she became unfit because of defect in eye. Therefore, she requested that in her place, the case of the petitioner, who is the son of the deceased, to be considered for compassionate appointment under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. On consideration of the same, the Joint Secretary to Government of Odisha, Women and Child Development Department vide letter dated 20.02.2015 required to furnish certain information/documents including the fresh affidavit of the legal heir of deceased Siba Narayan Pattnayak (except the petitioner) that they have no objection if the petitioner is appointed under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, which was complied with by meeting the query. On that basis, following rules inquiry was conducted, distress certificate was issued, but finally vide order dated 04.11.2015, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it contradicts the provisions of Rule-2(b) of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990.

(3.) Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that as the mother of the petitioner faced ailments with regard to vision injury in eyes and was medically declared unfit for the nature of employment sought by her under the rehabilitation assistance scheme, in spite of she being the next candidate suitable for employment, the claim of the petitioner should not have been rejected by resorting to Rule 2(b) of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. His further contention is that the impugned order dated 04.11.2015 in Annexure-15, having been passed by the very same Joint Secretary, who had made all the correspondences for consideration of the case of the petitioner, suffers from bias and non-application of mind and, as such, is liable to be set aside.