BISWARANJAN BARIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order dated 6.10.2016 passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of Orissa, Department of Higher Education, Annexure-10, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 ("Rules, 1990") on the ground that the petitioner is the third legal heir of the deceased employee in order of preference.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that Bula Barik, father of the petitioner, was working as Peon in Kishore Nagar College. He died on 14.5.2006 leaving behind his widow, three daughters and one son, petitioner while in service. The petitioner made an application for appointment under the Rules, 1990. The same was sent to the Government of Orissa by the Principal of the Kishore Nagar College on 11.2006. By letter dated 6.10.2016, the Joint Secretary to Government of Orissa, Department of Higher Education intimated the Director, Higher Education, Orissa rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he is the third legal heir of the deceased employee in order of preference and the same is in contravention of Rule 2(b) of the Rules, 1990.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.2 justifying the order. It is stated that of Rules, 1990 is meant to save the family from distress condition due to death of an employee. The first preference is given to wife/husband for the said benefit. In the instant case, the widow of the deceased employee is alive. She was 38 years old at the time of death of her husband. She should apply for the benefit under the Rules, 1990. But then, her son being the third legal heir applied for the job. Further, as per Rule 9(6) of the Rules, 1990 application should be submitted within one year from the death of the employee. The employee expired in the year 2006. The incomplete application was submitted in the year 2011 i.e., after lapse of five years, which is in contravention of Rule 9(6) of Rules, 1990. In view of the same, the case of the petitioner was rejected.