AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Biswanath Rath, J
Heard the submission of learned counsel for Petitioners.
Undisputedly this writ petition was filed in the year 1997 seeking employment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme for the death of the father of the Petitioners. Through the Form-A there has been disclosure that monthly income is Rs.900/- per month and there is a sum of Rs.46,330/- on the head of DCRG and thus attempt is made for making Petitioner No.1 at least eligible for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.
Upon issuance of notice in the writ petition on the allegation of the no action for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, challenge has been filed by the Contesting Opposite Party-Corporation observing in paragraph no.7 as follows:-
“7. That in reply to the aforesaid regularization the Additional District Magistrate Khurda made an inquiry and reported the application along with his finding vide his office Letter No. 3307, dtd. 28.10.95 which was received by on 2.11.95. Wherein the Additional District Magistrate has assessed the annual income of the family at Rs.18,104.00. The application of the petitioner along with the report of the Additional District Magistrate in Part-IV, therein is filed Annexure-A to this affidavit.
Looking to the counter averments, it appears, family of the Petitioners have sufficient income thereby disqualifying Petitioner No.1 from being considered under the Rehabilitation Assistance package.
It is, in the above circumstance, the contesting Opposite Parties objected the claim of the Petitioners.
In course of hearing this Court finds, the ownership of the establishment in opposition has been changed repeatedly. An application was brought vide Misc. Case No.206 of 2006 for bringing the CESCO to the fold of the writ petition, who at the relevant point of time had stepped into the shoe of the establishment involved. There has been disclosure through the argument that this establishment has also been taken up by agencies under the TATA establishment long since. It is observed that there is even no proper establishment to be heard and directed here. This apart since the rehabilitation assistance request was made in the year 1997 involving a death of the year 1994, for there is long lapse of time in the meantime and further for the specific allegation disqualifying the Petitioners from being considered under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme and further for there is repeated change in the management of the Organization involved and further also keeping in view that in the meantime almost 25 years have already passed involving a cause of action of the year 1994, this Court finds, no purpose will be served in entertaining and keeping this matter pending any further.
This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
……………………………