AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
Heard Mr. M.K. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, as he has already appeared by filing vakalatnama so reflected in order dtd.08.09.2025 of this Court and Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opp. parties.
The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:
“It is therefore prayed that Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, issue notices to the opp. parties calling upon them to show-cause or failing to show cause or to show insufficient cause, after hearing the parties be pleased to order to quash the impugned order under Annexure-1 passed by the Opp. party No.2 and the impugned order under Annexure-2 passed by the Opp. party No.4.
And further may be pleased to consider the case of the Petitioner as to entitlement of his post of Group-C instead of Group-D And Your Lordship may be pleased passed to any other suitable order/orders in favour of the Petitioner as Your Lordship deem just and proper.
It is contended that on the death of his father on 31.03.2015, while in service, Petitioner made the application to get the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on 01.07.2015 under Annexure-3. It is contended that Petitioner made the application to get the benefit of appointment as against a Group-C post. It is further contended that even though Petitioner was found eligible to get the benefit of appointment as against a Group-C post and there was no provision under the OCS (RA) Rules,) 1990 to provide appointment on contractual basis, Petitioner in violation to the said provision was appointed as against a Group-C post of Jr. Assistant in the office of Joint Director, Geology, Zonal Survey, Koraput vide order dtd.11.03.2020 under Anenxure-8.
Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since there is no such provision under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990, to provide appointment on contractual basis, appointment of the Petitioner as against the post of Jr. Assistant (Group-C) on contractual basis so issued on 11.03.2020 is contrary to the aforesaid provision.
It is further contended that in terms of the order issued on 11.03.2020 under Anenxure-8, Petitioner submitted his joining on the very same date so reflected in Annexure-9. However, while so continuing as a contractual Jr. Assistant in the Office of Joint Director, Geology, Zonal Survey, Koraput-Opp. party No.4, Opp. party No.2 vide Office order dtd.01.07.2020 under Annexure-1, cancelled the appointment of the Petitioner, relying on the amended OCS (RA) Rules, 2020. Basing on such order passed on 01.07.2020 under Annexure-1 of Opp. Party No.2, consequential order was issued by Opp. party No.4 on 02.07.2020 under Annexure-2, by cancelling the appointment of the Petitioner as a Contractual Jr. Assistant, so issued vide order dtd.11.03.2020 under Annexure-8.
It is contended that since Petitioner’s father died while in service on 31.03.2015 and he was found eligible to get the benefit of appointment as against a Group-C post, such order of appointment even though was made on contractual basis, could not have been cancelled relying on the amended OCS (RA) Amended Rules, 2020.
It is further contended that after cancelling the benefit of appointment as against the Group-C post vide the impugned order under Annexures-1 & 2, Petitioner was appointed as against a Group-D post with due approval of Opp. party No.2, vide his order dtd.03.07.2020 under Anexure-10, with the consequential order of appointment issued on 06.07.2020 under Annexure-11.
It is contended that Petitioner on compelling circumstances and to survive and maintain his life though joined on 06.07.2020 under Anenxure-12, but on the very same day, he made an application before Opp. party No.2 with a plea that he is so joining as against a Group-D post vide Annexure-13
While assailing the impugned order issued under Annexures-1 & 2, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that, since Petitioner was found eligible to get the benefit of appointment as against a Group-C post, instead of giving him appointment on regular basis, he was given the benefit of appointment on contractual basis vide order dtd.11.03.2020 under Annexure-8.
Even such order of appointment on contractual basis, could not have been cancelled by Opp. party No.2 on 01.07.2020 under Anexure-1, and consequential order issued by Opp. party No.4 on 02.07.2020 under Anenxure-2, relying on OCS (RA) Amended Rules, 2020 and subsequently providing appointment to the Petitioner as against a Group D post, vide order dtd.06.07.2020 of Opp. party No.3 basing on the order passed by Opp. party No.2 on 03.07.2020 under Annexure-10.
It is also contended that the very appointment of the Petitioner on contractual basis was wrong as there is no such provision for giving contractual appointment under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, so provided under OCS (RA ) Rules, 1990. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to a decision of this Court so passed in WPC (OAC) NO.2062 of 2017 & batch (Biplab Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Odisha & Others). This Court in para-6.1 of the aforesaid order held as follows:
6.1.Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that any clarification issued contrary to the provisions contains cannot override the statutory rules. Therefore, the action taken by the Opposite Parties in providing appointment to the Petitioners on contractual post relying on the clarification issued on 06.02.2015 under Annexure 6 is not legal and justified.
Therefore, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court as cited (supra) and the benefits extended in favour of similarly situated reflected in Annexure-9, this Court is inclined to quash the order of rejection so passed in the case of Biplap Kumar Sahoo in WPC(OAC) No.2062 of 2017. While quashing the said order, this Court directs the persons Opposite Parties to extend the benefit of regular appointment in favour of the Petitioners from their initial date of appointment. On such extension of the benefit of regular appointment, all service and financial benefit as due and admissible shall also be extended in favour of the Petitioners. This Court directs the Opposite Party No.3 to complete the entire exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
Making all these submissions, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that with quashing of the impugned order issued under Annexures-1 & 2, order of appointment issued in favour of the Petitioner on 11.03.2020 on contractual basis as against the post of Jr. Assistant (Group-C) under Annexure-8, be treated to have been issued on regular basis, with extension of all service and financial benefits, as due and admissible.
Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. party No.2.
It is contended that in consideration of the application made by the Petitioner under Anenxure-3 on 01.07.2015, on the death of the deceased employee on 31.03.2015, Petitioner though was found eligible to get the benefit of appointment as against a Group-C post, but was issued with such order of appointment on contractual basis vide order dtd.11.03.2020 under Annexure-8.
However, since by the time such order of appointment was issued under Annexure-8, OCS (R.A) Amended Rules, 2020 had already been notified on 17.02.2020, which provides that no such appointment can be made as against a Group-C post, order of appointment issued in favour of the Petitioner under Annexure-8, was cancelled vide order issued under Annexures-1 & 2, relying on the provision contained under OCS (RA) Amended Rules, 2020.
It is accordingly contended that since by the time Petitioner was appointed as against a Group-C post vide order dtd.11.03.2020 under Annexure-8, the amended Rules was already notified w.e.f 17.02.2020, Opp. party No.2 thought it proper to cancel the order of appointment and cancelled the same vide his order dtd.01.07.2020 under Annexure-1. Basing on such order of Opp. Party No.2 consequential order was issued by Opp. Party No.4 on 02.07.2020 under Annexure-2.
Stand taken in the counter affidavit in support of the aforesaid submission reads as follows:
5.xxx xxx xxx That it is further humbly submitted that meanwhile the G.A. Department has published Gazettee Notification vide No.395/GA & P.G dated 27.02.2020 wherein it is prescribed that appointment under R.A Scheme is to be made exclusive in the Group-D post. Whereas the Petitioner was appointed in the post of Group-C vide Order No.278/KZ, dated 11.03.2020 which is after the publication of above Gazette Notification. The appointment of the Petitioner in the post of Group-C is contrary to the Government Notification No.395/GA & PG dated 27.02.2020. So the Directorate of Geology, Odisha (Opposite Party No.2) has withdrawn the approval for appointment to the post of Group-C post (Jr. Asst.) and accordingly the JDG, Koraput (Opp. party No.4) revoked the appointment order.
It is also contended that since Petitioner subsequent to such cancellation of the order, was appointed as against a Group-D post vide order dtd.06.07.2020 under Annexure-11, basing on the order passed by Opp. party No.2 on 03.07.2020 under Annexure-10 and Petitioner has already joined as against a Group-D post, prayer made in the Writ Petition has become infructuous and Petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit, as prayed for.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that on the death of the deceased employee on 31.03.2015, Petitioner made the application to get the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on 01.07.2015 under Annexure-3.
Since the employee died on 31.03.2015 and Petitioner made the application on 01.07.2015, Petitioner’s claim was considered as per the provisions contained under OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. Even though there is no such provision under the aforesaid Rules, to provide appointment on contractual basis, but Petitioner in consideration of his application and on being found eligible to get the benefit of appointment as against a Group-C post, was issued with the order of appointment as against the post of Jr. Asst. (Group-C ) vide order dtd.11.03.2020 under Anenxure-8 on contractual basis. In terms of the said order, Petitioner joined on the very same day under Annexure-9.
However, relying on the provisions contained under OCS (RA) Amended Rules, 2020, order of appointment so issued on 11.03.2020 under Anenxure-8, was revoked by Opp. party No.2 vide his order dtd.01.07.2020 under Anenxure-1. Consequential order was passed by Opp. party No.4 on 02.07.2020 under Anenxure-2, in cancelling the order of appointment issued on 11.03.2020.
Since the deceased employee while in service died on 31.03.2015 and Petitioner made the application on 01.07.2015, with Petitioner being given the benefit of appointment vide order dtd.11.03.2020 under Anenxure-8, though on contractual basis as against a Group-C post, , it is the view of this Court that such benefit could not have been revoked, so revoked vide the impugned order under Annexures-1 & 2, relying on the amended provisions of OCS (RA) Amended Rules, 2020, so notified on 17.02.2020
It is also the view of this Court that since there is no such provision to provide appointment on contractual basis to an appointee under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme of OCS (RA) Rules, 1990, Petitioner should have been appointed as against a regular Group-C post of Jr. Assistant, instead of being appointed on contractual basis vide order dtd.11.03.2020 under Anenxure-8, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Biplab Kumar Sahu so cited supra.
In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by Opp. party No.2 on 01.07.2020 under Annexure-1 and consequential order passed by Opp. party No.4 on 02.07.2020 under Annexure-2 are not sustainable in the eye of law.
Therefore, this Court while quashing the orders, issued under Annexures-1 & 2, directs Opp. party No.2 to treat the Petitioner to have been appointed as against the Group-C post of Jr. Assistant on regular basis so appointed vide order dtd.11.03.2020 under Annexure-8.
Since it is not disputed that Petitioner pursuant to the subsequent order joined as against the post of Peon on 06.07.2020, but on protest, differential entitlement as due and admissible be released in favour of the Petitioner. This Court directs Opp. party No.2 to complete the entire exercise within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this order.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.