SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of her claim for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme by the Chief Engineer & Basin Manager, Subarnarekha & Budhabalanga Basin, Mayurbhanj by order dated 06.09.2022.

2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband, Gobardhan Bindhani was working as Watchman in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Subarnarekha Irrigation Division No.1 at Jharpokharia in the district of Mayurbhanj. He died in harness on 02.07.2016 due to illness leaving behind his widow (petitioner), two sons and his old mother. The family being suddenly faced with financial crisis because of death of the only earning member, the petitioner submitted an application to the opposite party No.4 for consideration of her case for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. The matter was kept pending for long time. The Executive Engineer of the Division called upon the petitioner to resubmit the application with all documents which she submitted on 13.03.2019. By letter dated 18.04.2019, the Executive Engineer forwarded the application of the petitioner along with the connected documents to the Superintending Engineer. Again no action was taken till 04.07.2022, on which date the case of the petitioner was considered as per the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 (in short ‘2020 Rules’) and was rejected on the ground that she had scored less than 44 points in Part-1. The decision of the committee was communicated to the petitioner through the Superintending Engineer by letter dated 06.09.2022, copy enclosed as Annexure-6, which is impugned in the present application. On such facts, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:

“Under the abovementioned facts and circumstances of the case, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the Evaluation Committee Meeting held on 4.7.2022 and Copy of Letter No.5107 dated 6.9.2022 under Annexure-5 and 6 respectively.

And further be pleased to direct the Opp.Party No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner as per Rehabilitation Assistance Rule, 1990 and appoint the Petitioner in any Group-D post.

Or pass any other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem think fit and proper.”

3. Despite sufficient opportunities, no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the opposite party authorities, for which the matter was heard on the basis of the available pleadings.

4. Heard Mr. S.B. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Iswar Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

5. It is argued by Mr. Jena that the petitioner having submitted application soon after the death of her husband in the year 2016 and again resubmitted such application being called upon in the year 2019, her case should have been considered as per the provisions of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (in short ‘1990 Rules’). The authorities by applying the provisions of the 2020 Rules have committed an illegality since they are themselves guilty of sitting over the application of the petitioner for so long. To fortify his contention, Mr. Jena has cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684.

6. Per contra, Mr. I. Mohanty, learned State Counsel argues that there is no evidence of the petitioner having submitted application for compassionate appointment prior to 13.03.2019. As per Rule 6(9) of the 2020 Rules, all pending applications are to be considered under the new Rules. The petitioner’s application was considered, but she could not secure the required points on evaluation and therefore, the same was rightly rejected. Mr. Mohanty further submits that in the absence of proof of any application having been submitted prior to 13.03.2019, it cannot be said that there was any undue delay on the part of the authorities to process the application.

7. There is no dispute that the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 02.07.2016. A legal heir certificate appears to have been issued by the concerned authority on 30.11.2016. There is no proof of any application having been submitted by the petitioner shortly after the death of her husband. In Paragraph-4 of the writ application, it is simply stated that the petitioner had submitted an application to the opposite party No.4 for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme but no date of submission of such application mentioned. It is further stated that the authorities again asked her to submit an application, which she complied. In the above circumstances, the letter dated 18.04.2019 of the Executive Engineer in forwarding the application along with documents of the petitioner assumes significance. The letter itself is quoted below for immediate reference;

"OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SUBARNAREKHA IRRIGATION DIVISION NO.1, JHARPOKHARIA.

Letter No To.

Dated.

Sub:-

The Superintending Engineer, Subarnarekha Irrigation Circle, Laxmiposi.

Resubmission of Application for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistant Scheme of Smt. Purnima Bindhani wife of late Gabardhan Bindhani of this Division.

Ref:- Your Letter No- 7019/WE dtd.13.12.18.

Sir,

In inviting a kind reference to the letter & subject cited above, it is to intimate that late Gabardhan Bindhani, Ex- watchman of this office expired on dt,02.07.16 while in service

As such the application with connected documents of Smt.Purnima Bindhani, wife of late, Gabardhan Bindhani for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistant Scheme which has been received from her by register post Vide No-RO776460465IN, Dtd.13.03.19. is resubmitted herewith for favour of information and necessary action

Encl:- Application Form -3 set

(i) See Rule – 6 no.

(ii) Part VII 6 nos.

(iii) Annexure-6 nos

(iv) Legal Heir Certificate -3 nos

(v) Death Certificate- 3 nos

(vi) Qualification Certificate- 3 nos.

(vii) Income Certificate- 3 nos

(viii) Resident Certificate- 3 nos.

Yours faithfully,

Executive Engineer,

S.I. Division No. 1, Jharpokharia

Memo No. 735 Date-18-04-19

Copy submitted to the Chief Engineer and Basin Manager S & B Basin, Laxmiposi for information and necessary action.

Executive Engineer

Memo No.- Date

Copy to the Sub Divisional Officer, S.I. Sub Division No- IIL,Jharpokharia for information with reference to his Lr No-511/WE dtd.29.09.18 Executive Engineer

[ Emphasis supplied]"

8. The highlighted portions mentioned under the subject as well as body of the letter clearly show that the application was resubmitted and not submitted for the first time. Therefore, notwithstanding absence of any evidence of submission of an application by the petitioner at an earlier point of time, the letter dated 18.04.2019 is sufficient to draw an inference that the same was resubmission of application. Even otherwise, it does not stand to reason as to why the petitioner would remain quite till 2019 when she had already obtained the death certificate of her husband and a legal heir certificate in the year 2016 itself, shortly after death of her husband. If such is the case, it can be easily inferred that the petitioner’s claim for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme was kept pending at the end of opposite party authorities for at least three years, i.e., from 2016 to 2019. Even accepting for a moment that she had submitted the application on 18.03.2019 also, there is no reason as to why the same was kept pending till as late as 04.07.2022 for evaluation but only to be rejected and communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 06.09.2022. It is apparent that the matter was dealt with in the most callous manner by the concerned authorities.

9. It is trite that appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme is intended to save a family from distress caused by the death of the earning member. Of course, learned State Counsel has argued that delay nullifies the immediacy involved but then if such delay is attributable to the authorities, in the present case high level government functionaries, the principle would have no application. This very issue was addressed by the Apex Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra) in the following words:

"14. Thus, from the aforesaid, it can be seen that there was no fault and/or delay and/or negligence on the part of the appellant at all. He was fulfilling all the conditions for appointment on compassionate grounds under the 1990 Rules. For no reason, his application was kept pending and/or no order was passed on one ground or the other. Therefore, when there was no fault and/or delay on the part of the appellant and all throughout there was a delay on the part of the department/authorities, the appellant should not be made to suffer. Not appointing the appellant under the 1990 Rules would be giving a premium to the delay and/or inaction on the part of the department/authorities. There was an absolute callousness on the part of the department/authorities. The facts are conspicuous and manifest the grave delay in entertaining the application submitted by the appellant in seeking employment which is indisputably attributable to the department/authorities. In fact, the appellant has been deprived of seeking compassionate appointment, which he was otherwise entitled to under the 1990 Rules. The appellant has become a victim of the delay and/or inaction on the part of the department/authorities which may be deliberate or for reasons best known to the authorities concerned. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the larger question open and aside, as observed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the appellant herein shall not be denied appointment under the 1990 Rules.

15. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellant for appointment on compassionate grounds under the 1990 Rules as per his original application made in July, 2010 and if he is otherwise found eligible to appoint him on the post of Junior Clerk. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from today. However, it is observed that the appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of his appointment only. The present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

16. Before parting with the present order, we are constrained to observe that considering the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, i.e., a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service and the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and decide such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications.”

10. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the principle underlying the judgment rendered in Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra) would be squarely applicable to the present case.

11. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order under Annexure-6 is hereby quashed. The opposite party authorities are directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme as per the 1990 Rules. Since the Government servant died way back in the year 2016, the authorities shall do well to dispose of the application of the petitioner as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.