Allowed

Junedhar Dowarah v. the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 May 2019WP(C)/614/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the rejection of a die-in-harness scheme appointment application due to time lapse. The court held that respondents cannot reject the application if the delay was due to authorities, directing reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to place the matter before the SLC for re-consideration within three months.

Junedhar Dowarah Vs the State of Assam and 9… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010018632019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 614/2019

¶5

1:JUNEDHAR DOWARAH S/O LATE CHANDIDHAR DOWARAH R/O VILL- TAKOW BARI GAON, P.O. SISSIBORGAON, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN - 787110.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS.

¶8

REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶9

2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) ASSAM GUWAHATI -06.

¶10

3:THE CHIEF SECRETARY CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) ASSAM GUWAHATI -06.

¶11

4:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS (R/R) DEPARTMENT

¶12

DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 ASSAM

¶13

5:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONAL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI -06

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

ASSAM

¶16

6:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI -06 ASSAM. 7:JOINT SECRETARY WPT AND BC GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI -06 ASSAM. 8:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE (DLSC) DHEMAJI DHEMAJI- 787110. 9:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE (DLSC) DHEMAJI- 787110.

¶17

10:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. DHEMAJI RURAL ROAD DIVISION SILAPATHAR DHEMAJI- 787110

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DAS SR. ADV

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Date : 10-05-2019

¶24

Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. K. Mohammed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. S. Roy, learned Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶25

The grievance of the petitioner is that the application of the petitioner for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme had been rejected by the SLC on the ground that more than two years have lapsed from the date of submission of application.

¶26

The petitioner submits that his case was duly considered by the DLC for appointment as per the decision taken by the DLC in their meeting held on 24.05.2016. However, the SLC rejected the said application on the aforesaid ground.

¶27

In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father died on 17.03.2011 while in service while working as a Chowkidar in the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his application for appointment under the scheme on 27.04.2011.

¶28

From the above, it is clear that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner in making necessary application, the fault squarely lies with the authorities in considering his application belatedly and as such, the petitioner cannot be saddled with any liability because of the delay on the part of the authorities to consider the application.

¶29

Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the this Court rendered in WP (C) 348/2017 disposed of on 22.02.2018, in which it has been held by this Court that the authorities cannot deprive a candidate of the legitimate entitlement only on the ground of delay of consideration by the authorities by employing the

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

expressions “want of vacancy” and “spent its force” etc.

¶32

This Court is also in agreement with the aforesaid decision of the Court for the reason that if the delay was occasioned not on account of the applicant but on account of the State authorities, the applicant cannot be made to suffer by rejecting his plea for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme.

¶33

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities to place the matter again before the SLC for re-consideration in terms of the recommendation made by the concerned DLC and SLC shall not reject the application of the petitioner only on the ground of delay, which exercise shall be undertaken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order or the next SLC meeting, whichever is earlier, and inform the petitioner of the result thereof, by issuing a speaking order in this regard.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Junedhar Dowarah v. the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Junedhar Dowarah v. the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Diganta Barkataki Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Sashadhar Patowary Vs the Assam State Electricity Board and 3 Ors.

Solema Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Manoj Kr. Harijan @ Manuj Harijan Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Manoj Saha Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Altaf Hussain Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.