Orissa High CourtWP(C)/11270/2008dismissed

Binodini Sahoo v. State

2022-02-17Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar (Cj),Mr. Justice R.K.Pattanaik2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 11270 of 2008 Binodini Sahoo ....

Petitioner Mr. Santosh Ku. Swain, Advocate -versusState of Odisha and Others ....

Opposite Parties Mr. S.N. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

17.02.2022 06.

1. The challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 10th Order No.

April, 2008 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (OAT) dismissing O.A. No.3078(C) of 2002 filed by the present Petitioner seeking the quashing of the orders dated 6th August, 1994 and 26th October, 2002 passed by the Collector, Cuttack rejecting the Petitioner's case for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme (RAS).

2. Before the OAT, the defence of the Opposite Parties was that the Petitioner's father had in fact resigned from service which was accepted on 26th October, 1976 with effect from 9th August, 1976. As it transpired the Petitioner's father was posted in Belpada Sevashrama on 19th February, 1974 and was relieved from duties 9th August, 1976 consequent upon the said resignation.

3. When an inquiry which was ordered it transpired that the Petitioner's father had drawn salary for the period 1st August 1974 to 10th August 1978 and thereafter had ceased to draw any salary. On 14th January 1999 the Petitioner's father expired.

4. Unless the Petitioner was able to show that his father was still in service at the time of his death the question of the Petitioner seeking the benefit of RAS would not arise.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner tried to argue that the Petitioner's father was in fact continuing in service and had never resigned. However, the Court finds that on facts the OAT after examining the original files, was satisfied that the Petitioner's father had in fact resigned in 1976. This being a purely factual aspect of the matter, the Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with such finding of fact particularly when there are no documents contrary thereto in support of the Petitioner's case.

6. There is no error legal or factual in the impugned order of the OAT. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge S.K. Jena/P.A.