State Of Odisha & Others vs Anil Nayak

Dixit Krishna Shripad, J

State is in Intra-Court Appeal calling in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 07.02.2023, whereby sole Respondent’s WPC (OA) No.155 of 2018 having been favoured, the following relief has been granted in terms of Paragraph-9, which reads as under:

“9. Applying the above principles to the present case, since the wife is suffering from ailments and the elder son is a ‘polio’ patient and unable to move, in that case denial of opportunity to render service by the petitioner, who is the second son of the deceased employee, is unjustified. Accordingly, the order dated 07.11.2017 under Annexure-9 passed by the authority cannot sustain in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the authority for reconsideration of the grievance of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three.”

Learned AGA appearing for the State-Appellants vehemently argues that the impugned order is liable to be voided; inasmuch as, the employee in harness died on 18.09.2012; he has three male children; widow did not choose to claim; the first son being polio struck, has not staked his claim for appointment; only the Respondent being the second son, staked his claim, there being no consent from the side of third son. This aspect having not been adverted to by the learned Single Judge, the impugned order is infected with a grave infirmity. He also draws our attention to Paragraph-8 of the Appeal Memo, wherein it is pleaded that the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing, to the Appellants.

Mr. Dibyajyoti Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the sole Respondent fervently resists the Appeal contending that the contentions of learned AGA are untrue, if not false; he tells the Court that widow and the first son have not staked claim for appointment respectively on the ground of age and polio; it is only the Respondent, who happens to be the second son, had applied for compassionate appointment; the third son has also given an affidavit signifying his consent for appointment of his client; the Chief District Medical Officer, Puri, vide letter No. 1103 dated 06.02.2017 acknowledges the receipt of No Objection Affidavit from the third son of the deceased, original death certificate & Legal Heir Certificate. That being the position, the Appeal should be dismissed with cost, contends he.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Appeal Memo, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

4.1. In the Appeal Memo at Paragraph-8 a contention is taken that the Writ Petition came to be allowed giving no opportunity of hearing to the State & its Officials by the learned Single Judge. This contention is not only not true, but false. After notice, the Appellants, being the Opposite Parties, had filed their Counter resisting the Petition, and to that the Respondent had filed the Rejoinder. We fail to understand, how such a stand can be taken without looking into the records. In fact, such a contention has the potential of casting aspersion on the learned Single Judge, who has handed the impugned order after giving full opportunity to all. This is a sufficient ground for dismissal of the Appeal itself. Be this as it may.

4.2. The above apart, Appeal is filed after brooking a delay of 319 days. An application supported by affidavit, is moved seeking its condonation. Since a militantly false contention, as discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph, is taken by the Appellants, we do not propose to consider the subject application for condonation of delay on the principle of flasus in uno, falsus in omnibus. A person who speaks demonstrably false things before the Constitutional Courts cannot be shown leniency at all. It is more so, when such person happens to be the State or its Authorities, as in the present case. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is rejected.

4.3. There is no dispute as to the death of employee in harness, leaving behind a widow, who is aged and three sons; one of them is struck with Polio, and therefore, he did not stake claim for compassionate appointment. It is only the second son i.e., the sole Respondent in this case, who alone had staked his claim. This he did after obtaining the Consent Affidavit of his brother, who is third son of the deceased. All this is demonstrable from the correspondence between the Officials of the Department. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has handed an impeccable order now put in appeal at our hands. Absolutely there is no reason or justification for filing this Appeal. Such a militantly unworthy Appeal has to be dismissed, is one thing. However, its filing cannot go with impunity. The State has to conduct itself as a model litigant, said the Apex Court in a catena of decisions.

In the above circumstances, this Appeal is dismissed with an exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only. However, this cost will not be payable, if the compassionate appointment letter is issued to the Respondent on or before 29.01.2026; otherwise, that amount is payable to the Respondent within two weeks and delay will carry Rs.100/- (Rupees One Hundred) only per day for the first four weeks and Rs.200/-(Rupees Two Hundred) only for the days next following.

For the limited purpose of reporting compliance, call this matter on 30.01.2026.

Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.