Allowed

Biswanath Das v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Apr 2018WP(C)/5242/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compassionate appointment for his deceased father; his case was rejected after an 8-year lapse. The High Court held the rejection violated its own guidelines and set aside the impugned orders, directing the authorities to place the application before the next committee for consideration. (42 words)

What did the court decide?

The District Level Committee is directed to place the petitioner's case before the next DLC for consideration in light of established High Court guidelines and to communicate the decision.

Biswanath Das Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010010532013

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 5242/2013

¶5

1:BISWANATH DAS

¶6

S/O LT. RAMENDRA NATH DAS, R/O KURSHAKATI, P.O. MOLANDUBI, DISTKOKRAJHAR, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-6

¶10

2:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION ELE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY-6 ASSAM

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GHY-19

¶12

4:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY-6 ASSAM

¶13

5:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER KOKRAJHAR 6:DY. INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS KAZIGAON PARBTJHORA BTAD KOKRAJHAR

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

7:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER KOKRAJHAR BTA

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRU SARMA

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 03-04-2018

¶22

Heard Mr. S Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A Deka, learned Standing counsel, Education Department for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Ms. R B Bora, learned Government advocate for the respondent No. 4 and Ms. B Bhuyan, learned Standing counsel, BTC for the respondent Nos. 5 to 7.

¶23

Petitioner’s father, namely, Ramendra Nath Das, while serving as a Head Pandit in 2380 No. Kashorjora L.P. School, Kokrajhar expired on 11.03.2001 and the petitioner being his eldest son, applied for his compassionate appointment on 22.03.2001 under the Die-in-Harness Scheme of the State and the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, Dhubri forwarded the name of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. However, the said Kashorjora L.P. School, Kokrajhar came under the jurisdiction of the BTC. As the petitioner was not considered for his appointment on compassionate ground, he approached this Court in WP(C) No. 2169/2010 which was disposed of on 28.10.2011 with a direction to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam to examine the grievances of the petitioner and observed that if the case of the petitioner was not placed before the State Level Committee, then, his case shall be placed before the said Committee as and when his turn comes and further observed that if the case of the petitioner had already been considered by the State Level Committee, but rejected, then, the reasons for such rejection, shall be made known to the petitioner so that he can take further action in accordance with law, as he may deem necessary.

¶24

In the said order dated 28.10.2011, it was also observed that after making such enquiry by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, it shall be communicated in writing to the petitioner and if

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

the petitioner’s case was already considered by the SLC and, then rejected, the petitioner, if feels aggrieved, may take recourse to appropriate provisions of law.

¶27

Accordingly, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam after obtaining the report came to the finding that the BTC authorities rejected the case of the petitioner, since his matter was placed before the concerned District level Committee after lapse of 8 (eight) years and accordingly, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam by order dated 29.04.2013 rejected the case of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme in view of the said decision of the DLC, BTC and the guidelines made in the Office Memorandum No. ABP-357/80/137 dated 09.09.1983 with regard to compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme. The petitioner being aggrieved with the same, has preferred this writ petition.

¶28

This Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674, have laid down the guidelines regarding consideration of application for compassionate appointment. Further, in the case of Faziron Nessa Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340, another Bench of this Court by referring to the judgment of Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra) and the guidelines issued therein further clarified that;

¶29

(a) All pending applications required to be considered other than the Principle No. I laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das(Supra), shall be so considered as per the guidelines/principles laid down in the said case along with the prevalent scheme,

¶30

(b) As emphasized in the said case, while rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment, reasons thereof must be assigned. The cases in which no reasons has been assigned towards rejection, the authority will assign reasons to the applicants,

¶31

(c) The cases for compassionate appointment shall be consider on need basis upon comparative assessment of various applications and not applying the test of seniority of claims. It may so happen that a claim latter in point of time is more deserving than a claim prior in point of time.

¶32

Moreover, in the case of Ajit Pator Vs. State of Assam & ors., reported in 2009 (3) GLT 306, this Court have clarified that the cases pending more than 2 (two) years for consideration for compassionate appointment but not placed before the concerned DLCs, need not be rejected at the threshold itself, but it should be placed and considered by the DLC and then to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and the guidelines issued in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra).

¶33

Page No.# 4/4

¶34

However, from the impugned order of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam dated 29.04.2013, it is seen that the DLC, BTC rejected the case of the petitioner as it was placed before the DLC, BTC after a lapse of 8 (eight) years but such rejection of the DLC, BTC was without following the guidelines prescribed in the cases of Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra) and Ajit Pator Vs. State of Assam (Supra) and Faziron Nessa (Supra).

¶35

Considering the above, the decision of the DLC, BTC as well as the impugned order of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam dated 29.04.2013 dated 29.04.2013 being not in conformity with the guidelines issued by this Court in the cases of Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra), Faziron Nessa Vs. State of Assam (Supra) and Ajit Pator Vs. State of Assam (Supra), are found to be bad in law and accordingly, set aside and quashed.

¶36

Considering the above, the Director of Education in the BTC is directed to place the case of the petitioner before the next DLC, BTC and to consider his case in the light of the judgments in the cases of Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra), Faziron Nessa Vs. State of Assam (Supra) and Ajit Pator Vs. State of Assam (Supra) and to pass order accordingly and thereafter, the Director in the BTC shall intimate the petitioner regarding its decision about his compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme.

¶37

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Biswanath Das v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biswanath Das v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sad Uddin Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Jehirul Islam Vs Phanindra Jidung

Surendra Nath Dutta Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Rina Saikia and 5 Ors. Vs Sanjib Kr. Bhuyan

Aminul Hussain Vs Dr M. Angamuthu and Anr.

Dulali Mondal and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.