Disposed

Sri Bhaben Roy v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Sept 2019WP(C)/4247/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compassionate appointment. State Level Committee rejected him citing no OBC vacancy. Court held Committee must reconsider as government memo allows looking at vacancies across departments.

What did the court decide?

Decision of State Level Committee setting aside set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration within three months or next meeting of SLC.

Sri Bhaben Roy Vs the State of Assam and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010129852018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 4247/2018

¶5

1:SRI BHABEN ROY

¶6

S/O- LT MRIGENDRA ROY, R/O- VILL- ARJHAR, PO CHAPAR, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, 783371

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

¶9

THROUGH THE SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶10

2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY-6

¶11

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPTT. ASSAM CHANDMARI GHY-3

¶12

4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT BTC KOKRAJHAR REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN PRINCIPAL SECY. BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL 783370 PO AND DIST- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CHAMPAMATI CANAL DVN. (IRRIGATION) DHALIGAON DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM 78339

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION (R1,3AND5)

¶17

BEFORE

¶18

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 04-09-2019

¶21

Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department, Government of Assam; Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Government Advocate, Assam and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, BTC.

¶22

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of decision of the State Level Committee (SLC) taken in its meeting held on 13.12.2017 rejecting the claim of the petitioner to compassionate appointment in the post of Section Assistant (Grade-III) on the ground of there being no vacancy for Other Backward Class (OBC) category as per roster point indicated by the concerned Executive Engineer and further seeks a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶23

According to the petitioner, he is a matriculate and belongs to OBC category. His father Mrigendra Roy served as a driver under the Executive Engineer, Champamati Canal Division (Irrigation), Dhaligaon in the district of Chirang. He died-in-harness on 30.10.2014.

¶24

Petitioner’s father was the sole bread-earner of the family. His sudden demise left the family in a state of penury. To tide over the hardship, petitioner applied before the competent authority on 15.11.2014 seeking appointment in a post commensurate to his qualification on compassionate ground.

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

Case of the petitioner was placed before the District Level Committee (DLC) in its meeting held on 20.09.2016. DLC recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Section Assistant (Grade-III) on compassionate ground. Recommendation of the DLC was placed before the SLC in its meeting held on 13.12.2017. However, case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there was no vacancy for OBC category as per roster point indicated by the concerned Executive Engineer.

¶27

Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed.

¶28

This case is pending since 09.07.2018 awaiting either instructions or filing of affidavit by the respondents.

¶29

Though more than one year has elapsed, neither any instructions have been placed before the Curt nor any affidavit filed.

¶30

However, considering the subject-matter of the writ petition, Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending any further.

¶31

Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered.

¶32

It is seen that SLC while rejecting the claim of the petitioner had referred to Clause 14(a)(iii) of the Government office memorandum dated 01.06.2015. In so far the aforesaid provision is concerned, it only says that a person selected for appointment on compassionate ground should be adjusted in the recruitment roster against an appropriate category, namely, SC/ST/ OBC/General depending upon the category to which he/she belongs.

¶33

However, in the said memorandum itself, there is also a provision contained in paragraph 15 that if vacancy is not available in any particular department in which initial proposal was made, authority can examine availability of vacancy in other departments also.

¶34

Paragraph 15 of the office memorandum dated 01.06.2015 is extracted hereunder:-

¶35

“ 15. If sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to accommodate the persons in the waiting list for compassionate appointment, it is open to the administrative Department/Office to take up the matter with other Departments/Offices of the Government to provide at an early appointment on compassionate grounds to those in the waiting list.”

¶36

Therefore, having regard to the ground of rejection taken by the SLC and the provisions contained in paragraph 15 of the office memorandum dated 01.06.2015 as

¶37

Page No.# 4/4

¶38

extracted above, Court is of the view that case of the petitioner is required to be reconsidered by the SLC. Accordingly, decision taken by the SLC on 13.12.2017 in respect of the petitioner is set aside and matter is remanded back to the SLC for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground having regard to paragraph 15 of the office memorandum dated 01.06.2015 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order or in the next meeting of SLC, whichever is earlier.

¶39

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Sri Bhaben Roy v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Bhaben Roy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Purbanchal Education Welfare Society Pews Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Apurba Talukdar Vs Thaneswar Malakar, I.A.S. and Anr.

Anjuara Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

The Union of India and 4 Ors. Vs Rajib Kumar Dholua and 11 Ors.

Arup Jyoti Karmakar Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Arup Jyoti Karmakar Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.