Allowed

Samin Akhtar Barbhuiya v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Aug 2019WP(C)/542/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding denial of appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the State Level Committee's decision for lack of reasoned justification and non-compliance with procedural requirements to check vacancy in other departments.

What did the court decide?

Decision of the State Level Committee dated 25.06.2015 set aside. Directing SLC to reconsider the petitioner's case considering DLC recommendations and OM dated 01.06.2015 within three months.

Samin Akhtar Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010016222018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 542/2018

¶5

1:SAMIN AKHTAR BARBHUIYA S/O- LATE SAMSUDDIN BARBHUIYA, R/O- VILL- BANSKHAL, P.OJAGISBASTI, P.S- DHALAI, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788123

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶8

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPTT., ASSAM (CIVIL) SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-788006

¶9

2:THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM CUM CHAIRPERSON SLC ASSAM(CIVIL) SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 788006

¶10

3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019 ASSAM

¶11

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC) CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 78800

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K DUTTA

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU.

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH order

¶18

01-08-2019

¶19

Heard Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Abedin,

¶20

learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department and Mr. B. Deuri, learned State Counsel, Assam.

¶21

The matter pertains to appointment of the petitioner under the die-in-harness scheme. The petitioner’s father died-in-harness on 14.02.2011, while serving as a Grade-IV employee in Poloi ME School, Cachar leaving behind the petitioner and other dependents. The application of the petitioner under the die-in-harness scheme was rejected by the State Level Committee (SLC) in its meeting held on 25.06.2015, on the ground of lack of vacancy though

¶22

the District Level Committee (DLC) had indicated the existence of vacancy in its proceeding held on 09.06.0214 and as such, it has been submitted that the aforesaid decision of the SLC is purely a case of non-application of mind.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶24

Though the SLC has all the right to disagree with the recommendation or findings of the DLC, however, if any such decision is taken regarding non-availability of vacancy by the

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

SLC, in spite of vacancy is shown by the DLC, this Court is of the opinion that the SLC should give reasons if it disagrees with the finding of the DLC, which apparently was not done by the SLC. That apart, as provided under the Para-15 of the OM. No. ABP.50/2006/Pt/182 dated 01.06.2015, the SLC would also require to examine the availability of vacancy in any other department.

¶27

In view of above, the present petition is allowed by setting aside the decision of the SLC held on 25.06.2015 as far as the petitioner is concerned, directing the SLC to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the recommendation made by the DLC in its meeting held on 09.06.2014 regarding the availability of vacancy and also keeping in mind the OM. No. ABP.50/2006/Pt/182 dated 01.06.2015 as observed above.

¶28

This exercise shall be done by the respondent authorities in its next SLC meeting or within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order, whichever is earlier and thereafter, the authority will intimate the decision to the petitioner by issuing a speaking order in this regard.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Samin Akhtar Barbhuiya v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samin Akhtar Barbhuiya 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

Jatindra Chandra Roy Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Nurul Islam Bhuyan Vs Pritam Saikia

M/S. Hind Steel Industry Vs the Union of India

Binapani Ray Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Shyamal Kumar Goswami Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Rajdeep Bharali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.