JUDGMENT
L. Mohapatra, J.
1. The petitioner in this writ application has sought for quashing the order intimated through the letter dated 8.11.1995 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for appointment under the Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990.
2. The father of the petitioner Late Hadibandhu Das was working as a Primary School Teacher in Mulabasanta Primary School under Kanas Block and expired on 13.11.1979 while in service, leaving behind the petitioner, two daughters and his widow. Though the father of the petitioner expired in November, 1979, the petitioner was a minor then and attained the age of 18 years on 12.6.1982. After attaining majority, the petitioner approached the authorities for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme (‘the Scheme’ for short) prevailing then. From 1982 till 1984 having run from pillar to post and having failed everywhere the petitioner made a representation on 19.2.1994 for appointment under the aforesaid Scheme. The widowed mother of the petitioner also made a representation on 31.8.1994 on the basis of which the prayer of the petitioner was taken up for consideration. The Additional District Magistrate, Khurda, made an inquiry with regard to the condition of the family of the petitioner and furnished a report stating that no member of the family of the petitioner has been given appointment on compassionate ground after the death of the father of the petitioner and the family of the petitioner has no immovable or moveable property nor they have any source of income to maintain their livelihood. In spite of such report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate, Khurda, the prayer of the petitioner was turned down on the ground that the Scheme has been made applicable with effect from 20th May, 1985 and therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered.
3. A counter has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties, wherein it is stated that the father of the petitioner died on 13.11.1979 and the benefit of the Scheme cannot be extended to him as the said Scheme was introduced only in 1985. It is stated in the counter that no application of the petitioner was received within five years from the date of death of his father and therefore, it did not deserve any consideration. The application for appointment under the Scheme was filed nine years after the death of the father of the petitioner.
4. Shri Rajen Mohapatra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the father of the petitioner expired on 13.11.1979 and the petitioner attained majority on 12.6.1982. Immediately after attaining majority, the petitioner had made two representations. one on 12.1.1983 and the other on 17.11.1983 within the period of five years from the date of death of his father. Therefore, even accepting the statement made in the counter affidavit that a representation has to be made within five years from the date of death, the case of the petitioner could have been considered.
The learned Additional Government Advocate disputes about filing of the representations in 1983.
5. It appears from the averments made in the writ application that there was no statement with regard to representations made in 1983. After filing of the counter, a reply to the same has been filed by the petitioner in which it is stated that two representations for employment under the Scheme were filed in 1983 and the same were sent under certificate of posting. Therefore, the objection of the State that no representations were filed within five years from the date of death of the father of the petitioner is not accepted. Apart from that, the State Government has also not considered the applicability of the Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (for short, ‘the Rules’) to the case of the petitioner which has been extended to a teaching and non-teaching staff of aided educational institutions under the Education Department. The entire object of extending the rehabilitation assistance has been conceived as a compassionate measure of saving the family of an employee from immediate distress when such employee suddenly dies or is permanently incapacitated. The concept is based on the premises that in case of such incapacitation or death family of the employee or the employee, as the case may be, would not face starvation. Here is a case in which an inquiry was made by the Additional District Magistrate, Khurda, and the report has been submitted that the family of the petitioner does not possess any moveable or immovable property and none of the family members has been given appointment on compassionate ground after death of the father of the petitioner. Therefore, the rejection of the representation of the petitioner for employment under the Scheme on a technical ground should not have been done, as it frustrates the entire purpose of the rehabilitation Scheme.
6. The petitioner has also averred in the writ application that one Lingaraj Rath working as Primary School Teacher in an aided school died on 26.3.1979 and his son Nilakantha Rath has been given an appointment under the Scheme. Reliance has been placed on Annexure-8 series. The Office Order No. 5528 dated 6.11.1986 shows that one Nilakanta Rath, a candidate for appointment as Non-Government Primary School Teacher under rehabilitation scheme on compassionate ground, was appointed as a Non-Government Primary School Teacher in Khandiabandha U.G.M.E.School under Ranpur Block. In the counter there is no reply in respect of this statement made in the writ application. If such an appointment has been made, it is not understood as to how the case of the petitioner can be discriminated on the ground that the Scheme was given effect to from May, 1985.
7. In view of the discussions made above, this writ application is disposed of with a direction that the case of the petitioner be reconsidered by the opposite parties taking into consideration the objectives for such appointment. The opposite parties are further directed to consider if the case of the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of the aforesaid Nilakantha Rath and if it is found that the case of the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of Nilakantha Rath, the petitioner shall be given the benefit as has been extended to said Nilakantha Rath.
