Subhadra Mahanta vs Government of Orissa and others

L. Mohapatra, J.—The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to give compassionate appointment to her from out of available vacancies under the Circle Inspector of Schools, Mayurbhanj.

Case of the petitioner is that her husband Jagabandhu Mahanta who was working as Lance Naik in the 5th Battalion in Border Security Force died while performing duty in the Indo-Bangladesh Boarder. Her further case is that her late husband was only son of his parents and after death of her husband she did not get any financial help from her in-laws and is leading a miserable life. After demise of her husband the authorities of the Border Security Force videletter dated 24-6-1997 requested the Collector, Mayubhanj to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The petitioner also submitted her application on 9-9-1997 before the C. I. of Schools, Mayurbhanj for being appointed as a peon. The Collector in his letter dated 15-9-1998 addressed to the C. I. of Schools, Mayurbhanj called for his views and the C. L of Schools, expressed his predicament regarding appointment on compassionate ground under the rehabilition assistance scheme as there were limited vacancies compared to the number of applicants waiting for appointment under the scheme. The petitioner in her application had also stated that there has been consistent efforts on the part of the Border Security Force in pursuing the matter with the State Government authorities for appointment on compassionate ground, but it has yielded no result.

Counter has been filed by the opposite party No. 4 wherein it is stated that since the petitioner''s husband was working in 5th Battalion of the Border Security Force, Gokulnagar, the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 is not applicable to her. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that number of applicants waiting for appointment is 54 whereas only 9 vacancies are available to be filled up. Therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered.

There is no doubt that under the provisions of the Rehabilitation Assistance Rules, 1990 the petitioner cannot be appointed as her husband was not an employee under the State Government. But, however, State Government also cannot close its eyes and refuse to shoulder responsibility of a woman whose husband died on duty while working for the Border Security Force. On the other hand, the State Government should come forward and extend help to a lady who is in distress and who has lost her husband working for Border Security Force.

I, therefore, dispose of the writ application by directing the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 to take necessary steps for appointment of the petitioner in any post for which she is considered qualified. This may be treated as a special case and this may not be cited as a precedent.

Requisites for communication of this order be filed within three days.

Writ application disposed of.