Disposed

Abeda Begum v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 May 2019WP(C)/2782/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second Round of litigation regarding compassionate appointment, the Court directed the State Level Selection Committee to reconsider the petitioner's case for appointment to any open Grade IV post instead of the originally considered Junior Assistant post, finding the prayer reasonable.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondent authorities to reconsider the petitioner's case for appointment to any Grade IV post within three months or in the next SLC sitting.

Abeda Begum Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010090522019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 2782/2019

¶5

1:ABEDA BEGUM

¶6

D/O. LT. ASAID ALI, W/O REKIB ALI, R/O. GANESHPUR, LALMATI, GUWAHATI, P.O. BASISTHA, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, ASSAM.

¶10

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPTT. BRAHMAPUTRA FLOOD CONTROL BUILDING CHANDMARI GUWAHATI ASSAM.

¶11

3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HYDRAULIC RESEARCH DIVISION WATER RESOURCE DEPTT. BASISTHA GUWAHATI-781029 ASSAM.

¶12

4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER KAMRUP(M) GHY. 781001 ASSAM.

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

5:THE STATE LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE

¶15

FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY.-6

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P N GOSWAMI

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WATER RESOURCE

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 04-05-2019

¶21

Heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Kakati, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. D. Nath, learned Add. Sr. Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶22

Considering the nature of the case, this Court is of the view that the present petition can be disposed of at this stage without issuing any formal notice to the respondents.

¶23

The claim of the petitioner pertains to appointment under the die in harness scheme.

¶24

This is the second round of litigation on the instance of the petitioner.

¶25

The petitioner’s father was earlier serving as a Pump Driver in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Hydraulic Research Division, Basistha, Guwahati and he died while in service on 19.07.2009.

¶26

Petitioner being a daughter submitted an application for appointment under the aforesaid scheme which was not considered by the authority, because of which she had to approach this Court by filing writ petition being WP(C) No. 6291/2013, which was disposed of on 06.02.2014 with the direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under the aforesaid scheme.

¶27

However, unfortunately, when the case of the petitioner was considered by the authorities at the State Level Committee (SLC), the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she does not fulfil the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant, as per the decision taken in the meeting of the SLC held on 21.02.2019.

¶28

Page No.# 3/3

¶29

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Higher Secondary Examination (Arts) passed and as such, even if she is not eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant, she is definitely eligible for appointment to any of the Grade IV posts.

¶30

Accordingly, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since she has no objection to be appointed to any Grade IV post which she is eligible, the State Level Committee (SLC) can be directed to reconsider her case.

¶31

This Court finds the said prayer of the petitioner tobe reasonable as the scheme being a beneficial scheme and if the petitioner is otherwise eligible for appointment to a Grade IV post, which she is willing to accept, the authorities must reconsider her case to appoint her to any of the Grade IV post either in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Hydraulic Research Division, Basistha, Guwahati or any other office or Department as the case may be.

¶32

The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken by the respondent authorities within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order or in the next State Level Committee (SLC) sitting.

¶33

With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Abeda Begum v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abeda Begum v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Kumar Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Chaplin Taye Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Hasina Banu and 39 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Labanya Dutta Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (Bsnl) and 3 Ors.

Mariyam Begum Vs Bhaskar Jyoti Mahanta and 3 Ors.

Dipali Karmakar Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.