CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court on Tuesday quashed Rule 6 (9) of the Rules, 2020 which replaced OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 and came into force from February 17, 2020, after finding it discriminatory while considering a batch of petitions. The applications of the petitioners eligible for compassionate appointment under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 were kept pending for years.
Rule 6 (9) of Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 that provides all applications for compassionate appointment pending as of the date on which the new set of rules came into force shall be governed by the existing one, has failed to pass the test of law.
When the new rule of 2020 came into force, the authorities asked such applicants, whose applications were pending as of that date, to apply afresh under the provisions of the new rules. The court found some applicants were given compassionate appointments under old rules, 1990 and some of the same category, were asked to apply afresh under the new rules of 2020, although their predecessors had died before the rules came into force.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice AK Mohapatra said, “The authorities by asking some of the leftover candidates to apply again under the new rules and by compelling them to undergo the recruitment process again as provided under the 2020 rules, have created two different classes of employees under the same category without having any specific object or purpose to achieve thereby. This is hit by Article 14 (Equality before law) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, rule 6 (9) of the Rules, 2020 is unconstitutional and unsustainable in law.”
While invalidating Rule 6 (9) of the Rules, 2020, Justice Mohapatra directed the state authorities to consider cases pending for compassionate appointment under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 without insisting on filing a fresh application under the OCS (RA) Rules, 2020. “All pending cases are directed to be considered under the old rules of the year 1990 as amended up to the year 2016 (wherever such amendment is applicable),” Justice Mohapatra added.
The existing rule 5 of 1990 was amended in 2016 to the extent that a quota of 10 per cent was fixed for the first time. It provided for earmarking a maximum of 10 per cent of the total vacancies in a year to be filled up by applicants under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.