Dismissed

Diganta Madhab Borah v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Mar 2019WP(C)/5854/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner, whose father died in service. The court directed authorities to re-examine the claim within three months, considering vacancies in other departments, and to issue a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to reconsider the petitioner's claim and issue a speaking order within three months.

Diganta Madhab Borah Vs the State of Assam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010186942018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 5854/2018

¶5

1:DIGANTA MADHAB BORAH

¶6

S/O. LATE NAREN CHANDRA BORAH (ELDER SON OF LATE AKBAR ALI WHO DIED IN HARNESS), R/O. CHIROTIA GAON, JORHAT, PULIBOR, P.O. REGIONAL RESEARCH LABORATORY, P.S. PULIBOR, PIN- 785006, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM CUM CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶10

2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT (PWRD) DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶11

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS ROAD DEPARTMENT (PWRD) CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 781003.

¶12

4:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JORHAT CUM CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE PERTAINING TO COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT JORHAT

¶13

PIN- 785001.

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (R AND B) MECHANICAL DIVISION JORHAT PIN- 785001

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N K KALITA

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 14-03-2019

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents.

¶22

Considering the issue involved in this petition, this court is of the view that this petition can be disposed of at this state.

¶23

Present petition pertains to appointment under the die in harness scheme.

¶24

The petitioner’s father, who was serving as a Mechanical Fitter in the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD(R&B), Mechanical Division, Jorhat died while in service on 11.03.1997.

¶25

Thereafter, the petitioner had applied for appointment under the die in harness scheme on 23.04.1997.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner submitted his application for appointment under the die in harness scheme on 23.04.1997, the concerned DLC did not consider the case of the petitioner till the year 2004.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner thereafter, submitted another application for appointment under the die in harness scheme on 27.07.2004 before the concerned authority.

¶28

The District Level Committee (DLC) considered the case of the petitioner in its meeting held on 11.9.2013 and duly recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment under the die in harness scheme.

¶29

Page No.# 3/3

¶30

However, though the case of the petitioner was placed before the SLC in its meeting held on 19.06.2018, the SLC did not consider the case of the petitioner without assigning any reason thereof.

¶31

In view of above, this Court is of the view that before the authority must communicate the result of the decision by the SLC and if not communicated, it would be presumed that such an application was not considered.

¶32

Accordingly, the present petitions is disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities to reconsider the claim of the petitioner by examining the availability of the vacancy in other Departments as the petitioner was already recommended by the District Level Committees (DLC), and also issue a speaking order, which exercise shall be undertaken by placing his case before the next State Level Committee Meeting, which may be convened or within 3 (three) months whichever is earlier.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Diganta Madhab Borah v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Diganta Madhab Borah 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

Shyamali Sarkar Vs Biren Bhattacharyya and 2 Ors.

Jayanta Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mahesh Barkataki Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Latumoni Das and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ila Choudhury and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Biswajit Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.