Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.32617 of 2024 Gajamati Karsel ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Siddharth Prasad Mishra -versus- State Of Odisha & ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – S.Jena, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 27.01.2025 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “Under the facts and circumstances as narrated above, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the Opp. Parties and after hearing the parties be pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to grant release the death benefit amount of Rs.2,05,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Five thousands only) in favour of the petitioner in lieu of the death of her husband, Gurucharan Karsel as expeditiously as possible and pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper.” 4. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Page 2 of 3. husband of the present Petitioner, who was working as a construction worker, died in a normal death. He further contended that after the death of the husband of the Petitioner on 29.10.2017, the Petitioner approached the competent authority for grant of compensation as has been provided in the rules. He further contended that although such application has been forwarded by the Labour Commissioner, Odisha to the Joint Labour Commissioner, Rourkela vide letter dated 01.11.2021 under Annexure-3. However, no action has been taken so far to consider the grievance of the present Petitioner with regard to payment of compensation amount under the provisions of Odisha Building and Other Construction Workers (RE&CS) Amendment Rules, 2019. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that he has no instruction with regard to the status of the application of the Petitioner. He further contended that the letter under Annexure-3 appears to be based on an application filed by workers’ union. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that in the event this Court directs the Petitioner to approach the competent authority by filing a fresh application with a further direction to the competent authority i.e. the District Labour Officer-Opposite Party No.5 to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with rules within a stipulated period of time, then he will have no objection to the same. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record, further keeping in view the limited nature of Page 3 of 3. grievance of the Petitioner, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Opposite Party No.5 ventilating his grievance within a period of four weeks from today along with a copy of today’s order. In the event such a representation is filed within the time stipulated, the Opposite Party No.5 shall do well to consider the same in terms of the rules and dispose of the representation by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of filing representation. The final decision so taken on the same shall be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of taking such a decision. 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Anil