Tanmay Palei vs. State Of Odisha

Facts

The Petitioner, Tanmay Palei, filed a writ application challenging an order dated 26.08.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, C.T. & GST Circle, Mayurbhanj. This order intimated the Petitioner that his application for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme (R.A. Scheme) was rejected because he did not meet the eligibility criteria specified under Rule 6(2)(b) of the OCSS (R.A.) Rules, 2020. The Petitioner's father died on 12.12.2015. The Petitioner had initially applied under the old OCS(R.A.) Rules, 1990, but his case was considered under the new Rules of 2020. The Petitioner sought a direction for employment under the R.A. Scheme.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's case should be considered under the rules prevalent on the date of his father's demise. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Indian Bank and others v. Promila and another, which established that compassionate appointments must be governed by the scheme in effect at the time of the employee's death. Consequently, the impugned order dated 26.08.2021 was set aside. The Court directed Opposite Party No.4 (presumably the appropriate authority) to reconsider the Petitioner's case in light of the aforementioned Supreme Court judgment. The entire exercise was to be completed within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, with the final decision to be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter. The Petitioner was also directed to place a copy of the Indian Bank case judgment and the High Court's order before the appropriate authority within two weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's application for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme should be considered based on the rules prevalent on the date of his father's demise (12.12.2015) or the rules notified later in 2020? Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that the appointment under the R.A. Scheme must be decided based on the scheme prevalent on the date of the employee's demise. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Bank and others v. Promila and another (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 729, which held that compassionate appointment must be decided based on the relevant scheme on the date of the employee's demise. Therefore, the Petitioner's case should have been considered under the 1990 Rules, not the 2020 Rules. Revenue/State's contention: The learned counsel for the State did not dispute the proposition of law advanced by the Petitioner. The State agreed to consider the Petitioner's case if the matter was remanded to the authority, in light of the Supreme Court's judgment.