Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 402 (ORI)

Sarajini Jena v. State of Odisha

2021-09-15

BISWANATH RATH

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition involves a direction to the opposite parties to provide employment to the petitioner on consideration of her application under rehabilitation assistance scheme following the ratio decided in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul Vrs. State of Odisha (School & M.E. Deptt.) & Ors., reported in 2016 (I) ILR-CUT-1162. 3. Background involving the case is that petitioner’s husband late Gangadhar Jena was working as a trained graduate teacher in Sarath Biswal Vidyapitha, Andalsingh under Kanas Block in the district of Puri. It is claimed that while the husband was continuing in his above capacity died in harness on 29.04.2011 leaving behind the petitioner as widow and two minor children. It is in the premises that husband of the petitioner was working in an aided educational institution by way of block grant. Petitioner submitted application for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme but however the application for rehabilitation assistance appointment at the instance of the petitioner was not accepted. It is only after decision of this Court came through Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra), there is creation of a right in favour of the persons already involving block grant schools required to be treated like that of the employees in the aided educational institutions. It is after coming to know this legal position, petitioner applied for appointment under rehabilitation assistance scheme following decision vide Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra) by submitting another application on 25.06.2020. It is also claimed that in the meantime, the Head Master of the School forwarded the application of the petitioner to the District Education Officer, Puri with all required documents, vide his letter dated 25.06.2020. It is alleged even though an evaluation is made of all the applications received in the office of the District Education Officer, Puri, wherein, petitioner was found to have secured 80% of the maximum marks highest amongst all candidates considered but however, while depriving the petitioner, one Prasant Kumar Mangraj’s case was considered for appointment in disposal of W.P.(C) No.13289 of 2021. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner in the above backdrop of the matter and for the petitioner’s case getting support through Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra) as well as the decision in W.P.(C) No.13289 of 2021 claimed for allowing the writ petition and issuing appropriate direction to the competent authority for providing appointment to the petitioner. 5. Mr.Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the State Department opposed the move of the petitioner on the premises that there being no final decision involving the petitioner, it should be treated as a pending case, no writ is entertainable at this stage. Mr. Mohapatra further also contended that in the meantime correspondences extending benefit of Rehabilitation Assistance Appointment to Aided Institutions having been recalled. The claim of the petitioner does not deserve any merit. Mr.Mohapatra, therefore, objected entertaining of the writ petition for having no merit otherwise. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds undisputedly the application for Rehabilitation Assistance Appointment at the instance of the petitioner is still pending, this Court in disposal of W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020 decided on 13.9.2021 already came to hold that pending applications shall be considered in the light of the provision under Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance Rules) 1990 and amended Rule 2016. This Apart, in deciding Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra), this Court also observed there should not be any distinction between the aided and government institution taking into account the nature of duty discharged by persons involving both categories. Further in disposal of W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020, this Court taking into consideration several judgments of Hon’ble apex Court has also come to hold that for the nature of service involved, petitioner being an employee in aided institution should be treated at par with the employee of the government establishment. It is also observed therein that once benefit is granted to a particular person, the same benefit has to be extended to all such persons standing in similar footing. It is also observed therein that once benefit is granted to a particular person, the same benefit has to be extended to all such persons standing in similar footing. It is in the circumstance but however taking this case to be a pending case as the application of the petitioner for appointment is still pending final decision, this Court in disposal of the writ petition directs the opposite party nos.2 and 3 to take final decision on the pending application of the petitioner, but however keeping in view the ratio decided in Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra) as well as the judgment of this Court dated 13.09.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020 by undertaking the entire exercise within a period of three months and also keeping in view if similar benefits have been granted to Prasant Kumar Mangaraj on the basis of disposal of W.P.(C) No.13289 of 2021. 7. The writ petition thus stands disposed of.