Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 677 (ORI)

Rudra Prasad Dwibedi v. State of Odisha

2018-07-20

A.K.RATH

body2018
JUDGMENT Dr. A.K.RATH, J. - By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order dated 28.1.2016 passed by the Director, Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, opposite party no.2, vide Annexure-8, whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner for appointment under the rehabilitation assistance scheme has been rejected. 2. Rabindranath Dwibedi, father of the petitioner, was functioning as Peon in Mahanadi Mahavidyalaya, Ratilo, Cuttack. Pursuant to the order dated 21.5.2011 issued by the Directorate of Higher Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, he was receiving grant-in-aid (block grant). He expired on 28.8.2013. He was the sole bread earner of his family. After his demise, the family received a setback. The petitioner filed an application to appoint him under the rehabilitation assistance scheme. The same was rejected on 28.1.2016, vide Annexure-8, on the ground that the rehabilitation assistance scheme is not applicable for Block Grant deceased employee. 3. Notice was issued on 22.2.2016. But no counter affidavit has been filed. 4. Heard Mr. A.K. Saa, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.P. Mohapatra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Stateopposite party nos.1 and 2 and Mr. D.K. Panda, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3. 5. Mr. Saa, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the father of the petitioner was functioning as Peon in Mahanadi Mahavidyalaya, Ratilo, Cuttack. He died leaving behind his widow and the son-petitioner. After his death, the family received a setback. The application of the petitioner was rejected on untenable and unsupportable grounds. To buttress the submission, he places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul vs. State of Odisha and others, (W.P.(C) No.5022 of 2013 disposed of on 11.5.2016). 6. Per contra, Mr. Mohapatra, learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that the rehabilitation assistance scheme does not apply to the employees of an aided educational institution. 7. In Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra), the question arose as to whether the benefit of the Scheme applies to the family members of an aided educational institution, which is receiving block grant ? This Court held : “7. 7. In Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra), the question arose as to whether the benefit of the Scheme applies to the family members of an aided educational institution, which is receiving block grant ? This Court held : “7. Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 defines the Aided Educational Institutions, which is quoted hereunder: “3(b) Aided Educational Institutions means private educational institution which is eligible to, and is receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government, and includes an educational institution which has been notified by the State Government to receive grant-in-aid.” 8. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is abundantly clear that private educational institution which is eligible to, and is receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government, and includes an educational institution which has been notified by the State Government to receive grant-in-aid is an aided educational institution. The Act does not make any distinction between the full Grant School or Block Grant School. Moreover, the private educational institution which has been notified by the State Government to receive grant-in-aid is also an aided educational institution.” 8. The ratio in Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra) applies proprio vigore to the facts of this case. The application of the petitioner was rejected on jejune grounds. In view of the same, the impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Director, Higher Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, opposite party no.2, for re-consideration of the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. 9. The petition is allowed. Petition allowed.