Summary
In a batch of State appeals against an Orissa High Court direction that compassionate-appointment applications filed before 17.02.2020 be considered under the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 rather than the 2020 Rules, the Supreme Court maintained the High Court's order, noting that the State's Amendment Rules notified on 04.04.2025 now require pending applications relating to deaths before the 2020 Rules to be dealt with under the rules prevailing on the date of death, and issued time-bound directions for processing the respondents' claims.
Issues
- Whether the High Court's direction that rehabilitation-assistance applications be considered under the 1990 Rules, on the basis of the date of the employee's death, warranted interference in view of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020.
Provisions considered
- Article 309, proviso, Constitution of IndiaNoted as the source of power under which the State Government made the 1990 Rules regulating recruitment to State civil services and posts as a measure of rehabilitation assistance. (¶ 4)
- Rules 2(b), 8 and 9, Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990Described as the scheme under which applications were made in Form A to the appointing authority, a distress report requisitioned from the Collector, and appointment ordered on an available vacancy if the report was favourable, subject to Rule 9; Rule 8 was substituted by the 2016 amendment. (¶¶ 4, 5)
- Rule 6(9), Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020As originally notified on 17.02.2020 it provided that cases pending on the date of publication would be dealt with under the 2020 Rules; the State's attempt to apply this to deaths that occurred while the 1990 Rules were in force gave rise to the writ petitions. (¶¶ 5, 6, 10)
- Rule 6(9)(a), (b) and (c) (as substituted on 04.04.2025), Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025Pending applications relating to deaths before commencement of the 2020 Rules are to be dealt with under the rules prevailing on the date of death; deaths before the 2016 amendment are to be decided on the distress certificate already on the application, and deaths between the 2016 amendment and the 2020 Rules require a fresh Collector's report on present financial distress under Rule 8 of the 1990 Rules, with an annual family income ceiling of Rs. 1,91,000 for a 'distress condition'. The Court found that the High Court's directions drew force from these amended rules and directed their application to all respondents. (¶¶ 7, 8, 10, 11, 12)
Held
- The High Court had directed that the respondents' applications, all filed before 17.02.2020 and delayed only on account of the authorities, be considered under the 1990 Rules on the footing that the date of the employee's death is the relevant factor, while making clear that there is no vested right to appointment and no retrospective appointment could be directed. (¶¶ 2, 6)
- The controversy created by the State's decision to apply the 2020 Rules to deaths that occurred before their commencement has been addressed by the Amendment Rules notified on 04.04.2025, which substitute Rule 6(9) to require pending applications relating to such deaths to be dealt with under the rules prevailing on the date of death. On the Advocate General's assurance that the notification will be applied mutatis mutandis to all respondents, the directions in the impugned order find support in the amended rules and the High Court's order is maintained. (¶¶ 7, 10, 11, 12)
- Respondents who have not already applied may apply with the requisite documents within twelve weeks, and those with pending applications may furnish any additional documents within the same period; the authority shall examine each case under the 2025 amended rules, not reject applications on technical grounds, and consider them sympathetically but strictly in accordance with the Rules. Where a post is available an appointment order shall follow, otherwise the procedure in the relevant rules applies; appointments already granted remain unaffected; a rejected respondent may take recourse to law; and the directions apply mutatis mutandis to all pending cases, including pending writ petitions before the High Court. (¶ 12)
Result
Appeals disposed of; High Court's order maintained; respondents to apply or supplement applications within twelve weeks and the competent authority to decide each case under the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Amendment Rules, 2025; directions to apply to all pending cases; pending applications disposed of.