The petitioner, a widow, challenged the rejection of her husband's claim for compassionate appointment. The court held that due to the 10-year lapse, no vested right exists, and the claim for re-consideration was denied.
The writ petition was dismissed as it was found to be devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010004752010
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 2042/2010
1:MRS NILIMA BEGUM
W/O LT. SAMSUL HAQUE R/O VILL. MALIKUCHI, P.S.NALBARI, DIST NALBARI, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP. BY THE SECY.TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND F.W.DEPTT, DISPUR,GHY-6
2:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES F.W. ASSAM HENGRABARI GHY-36
3:THE DIST LEVEL COMMITTEE NALBARI REP. BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER NALBARI DIST NALBARI ASSAM
4:THE ADDL. CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER F.W. NALBARI DIST NALBARI ASSA
For the petitioner : Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya.
Mrs. F. Begum, Mr. L. Mohan, Ms. A. Ahmed,
Page No.# 2/3
Ms. S. Roy. …. Advocates. For the respondent Nos.1,2 & 4 : Ms. D. Bora. ..…SC, Health. For the respondent No.3 : Mr. N. Goswami. .… GA, Assam.
Date of hearing & judgment : 01.02.2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel for the Health Department Ms. D. Bora appears for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4. Mr. N. Goswami, the learned Government Advocate, represents the respondent No.3.
Page No.# 3/3
the year of death of the Government employee, should only be taken into account but future vacancies cannot be considered for compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that since only 5% of the available posts are earmarked for compassionate category, unless necessary number of vacancies are available at the time of consideration, the departure from the normal mode of recruitment to Government jobs, cannot be made by the State to accommodate the compassionate category aspirants.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a direction for re-consideration of a compassionate appointment claim can be granted after a lapse of 10 years.
Whether future vacancies created after the death of the employee can be considered for compassionate appointment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶6
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 · Who else cites this
Union of India vs. Sima BanerjeeReferred¶6
Union of India vs. Sima Banerjee (MANU/SCOR/00065/2017)
MRS NILIMA BEGUM
THE STATE OF ASSAM
THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
THE DIST LEVEL COMMITTEE NALBARI
HRISHIKESH ROY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
