0

It is improper to keep such cases pending for years, the Orissa High Court rules after a 7-year delay, ordering compassionate appointments for two.

In the case of Pradip Kumar Sahoo v. Principal Secretary to Govt., School and Mass Education Deptt. & Ors. (Case No.: W.P.(C) Nos. 23682 & 23683 of 2021, Order Date 31st May 2022), the Orissa High Court ruled on Tuesday that it is very wrong to leave instances of compassionate appointment on hold for years, as the main goal of such cases is to lessen the burden on a grieving family. As Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi‘s Single Judge Bench issued orders for two people’s compassionate appointments, it was noted: “It is clearly stated that appointments should be made without delay in all cases where they are requested on the basis of compassion. By making an appointment on compassionate grounds, the burden caused by the death of the family’s primary provider is lessened. So, as soon as possible, such an appointment should be made to rescue the struggling family.”

Facts: The petitioners had submitted their application in accordance with the order of the High Court for considering their case in light of the decision in Damodar Jena v. Chairman-cum-M.D., Grid Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2015 (II) ILR-CUT-569 when they had filed these writ petitions challenging the order dated 23.03.2021 of the District Education Officer, Kendrapara- Opp. Party No. 4 in rejecting their representations for compassionate. Due to the harness of their late fathers, the petitioners have also disputed the Opp. Parties’ decision to disregard their application for the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme under the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule, 1990, despite the fact that they had submitted their paperwork to the proper authority for appointment.

Judgement: Mr. Karunakar Rath, counsel for the petitioners, said that Opp. Party No. 2 failed to give the petitioners the compassionate appointment in a timely manner [4:18 PM, 10/08/2022]. The petitioners were instructed to file a new application to the District Education Officer with all supporting documentation when the Amendment Rule 2016 took effect. Despite being on the chosen list, they were not offered any appointments under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, which is solely because of a covert agenda. The Court immediately noted that while the petitioners submitted their petitions in accordance with the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rule, 1990, they are not covered by the Amendment Rules, 2020. As a result, their cases ought to have been evaluated separately, in accordance with the Rules of 1990. According to the ruling, the opposing parties delayed by failing to consider their issues, and as a result, seven years had passed. Once more, it noticed: “Such a matter should not be allowed to drag on for years. A supernumerary position should be created to accommodate the candidate if there isn’t an appropriate post for the appointment. In the cases of Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. v. Union of India and Smt. Phoolwati v. Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court reaffirmed this position. The current case’s seven-year delay further demonstrates how cruel the officials are.”

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SNIGDHA DUBEY.

Click here to view the judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat