AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Ms. Ray, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and presses for hearing and order.
Ms. Pattanayak, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and prays for further adjournment.
Prayer for adjournment is rejected. This is because the writ petition was moved on 16th February, 2023, when Ms. Ray had submitted that her client seeks benefit under the housing scheme. Petitioner’s name was deleted on reason of lack of eligibility, alleging that her husband being in Government service as Home Guard with Odisha Police, having salary more than Rs.10,000/- per month took petitioner out of zone of consideration. Ms. Ray had submitted, her client’s husband is working as civil volunteer on daily wage basis.
Notwithstanding, her client and her family is in category of Below Poverty Line (BPL). Petitioner, therefore, is entitled to the benefit. Paragraph-3 from order dated 16th February, 2023 is reproduced below.
“Petitioner has alleged the negative. It is for the authorities to prove that petitioner’s husband is in Government service of being Home Guard with Odisha Police drawing salary of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) per month. State will file affidavit disclosing documents in support of the ineligibility criteria. The affidavit will be accepted on adjourned date upon advance copy served. It is being made clear that omission to file the affidavit or prayer for extension of time will invite adverse inference against State.
On 3rd March, 2023 further adjournment was obtained by State. The adjournment granted was peremptory.
This is a clear case, on adverse inference drawn against State and it functionary for alleging that petitioner’s husband has Government service in Odisha Police, drawing salary more than Rs.10,000/- per month. State, having in its service a police personnel and unable to produce proof of it is sufficient for Court to presume that the document is being withheld or petitioner’s husband is not in Government service.
On query from Court Ms. Ray submits, her client made representation dated 2nd February, 2023 seeking the benefit, to the Block Development Officer. Opposite party no.4 is directed to consider afresh the representation. Petitioner will communicate this order and copy of representation dated 2nd February, 2023 to said opposite party. Decision taken should be made known to petitioner within four weeks thereafter.
The writ petition is disposed of.
.…………………………