Allowed

Smt. Anora Begum @ Smt. Anora Begum Laskar v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 May 2019WP(C)/704/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court set aside the rejection of the petitioner's compassionate appointment claim due to late imposition of a financial status requirement. The Court directed the authorities to reconsider the application and grant her an opportunity to submit relevant documents within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; SLC minutes setting aside rejection set aside; liberty granted to submit financial status documents for fresh consideration within two weeks.

Smt. Anora Begum @ Smt. Anora Begum Laskar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010106762016

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 704/2016

¶5

1:SMT. ANORA BEGUM @ SMT. ANORA BEGUM LASKAR W/O. LT. ASAN UDDIN MAZUMDAR, R/O. GOBINDOPUR PT-I, P.O. DUNGRIPAR, P.S. SONAI MUKH, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶8

REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM and CHAIRMAN STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE AND COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT, DISPUR, GHY.06.

¶9

2:THE SECRETARY THE GOVT. OF ASSAM ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPTT. GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR

¶10

GHY.-06.

¶11

3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR FOREST AND HEAD OF THE FOREST FORCE ASSAM REHABARI GHY.-07.

¶12

4:THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST CENTRAL SOUTHERN ASSAM SOCIAL FORESTRY CIRCLE GHY.-01.

¶13

5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVN. SILCHAR CACHAR.

¶14

6:THE DY. COMMISSIONER

¶15

Page No.# 2/7

¶16

CACHAR SILCHAR

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.M BARUAH

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 13-05-2019

¶22

Heard Mr. H. Buragohain as well as Ms. R. Chakravorty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Das, learned Standing counsel for the Forest Department i.e respondents No.2, 3, 4 and 5.

¶23

In view of the grievances raised in the present writ petition, this Court is inclined to issue rule returnable forthwith.

¶24

1. At the instance of the learned counsel for both sides, the matter has been heard.

¶25

By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is projected that while working as Forest Guard in the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, the petitioner’s husband had died-in- harness on 19.06.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner had applied for considering her case for appointment on compassionate ground in the month of July, 2000 in terms of Office Memo dated 09.09.1983. The case of the petitioner was forwarded to the Conservator of Forest, Central Southern Assam, Social Forestry Circle vide letter dated 22.08.2000. As the petitioner had not received any information, she had submitted a representation on 28.01.2002 before the authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court and this Court by an interim order dated 12.04.2002 in WP(C) 1654/2002 directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner as early as possible. It is projected that the petitioner had produced the certified copy of the aforesaid order dated 12.04.2002 passed in WP(C) 1654/2002 before the authorities and the petitioner claims that she was verbally informed by the Divisional Officer,

¶26

Page No.# 3/7

¶27

Social Forestry Division, Silchar that there was a ban in the State for appointment on compassionate ground and the case of the petitioner would be considered after such ban was lifted.

¶28

Accordingly, the said WP(C) 1654/2002 was finally disposed of on 30.01.2004, whereby this Court had directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner as per the Office Memo dated 09.09.1983 within 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. As no further information was received, the petitioner filed another representation before the Secretary & Commissioner to the Government of Assam, Forest Department on 09.03.2005. After awaiting for a reasonable time, the petitioner had sent a legal notice to the conservator of Forest, Central Southern Assam, Social Forestry Circle, Guwahati. In his reply to the said legal notice the Conservator of Forest vide letter dated 02.11.2015 informed the petitioner that her matter had been forwarded to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of the Forest, Assam. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Office of the Chief Principal Conservator of the Forest on the 3^rd week of November, 2015 and she was informed that some cases of compassionate appointments from the year 1996 to 2010 was being considered by the government in the month of January 2015. Accordingly having received no information regarding whether the matter of the petitioner had been considered as one time measure by the respondent in terms of the direction passed by this Court, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the affidavit-inopposition filed by the respondent No.3 on 28.02.2017, the petitioner became aware for the first time that the list of various candidates for compassionate appointment was sent to the Administrative Department for placing the same before the SLC constituted by notification dated 11.10.2006 to examine the cases and while the SLC had recommended 104 numbers of candidates for appointment on compassionate ground against the year-wise vacancies from 1996 to 2010 purportedly as per the guidelines issued pursuant to the judgment rendered in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das and another Vs. The State of Assam and others, 2006 (4) GLT 674 and that in the SLC meeting held on 01.04.2015, the name of the petitioner was not recommended for compassionate appointment due to non-submission of financial status. In this regard it is submitted that in terms of guidelines contained in notification dated

¶30

Page No.# 4/7

¶31

11.10.2006, all the District authorities/ Committees/ appointing authorities and Administrative Departments were required to examine the compassionate case/ appointments as per the direction of the guidelines given in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra) and accordingly, it is submitted that when the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was submitted in the month of July 2000 and the case of the petitioner was considered in the SLC meeting held on 01.04.2015, during this 15 year period none of the officials dealing with the matter had scrutinized the application submitted by the petitioner and informed her that she was required to submit her financial status. It is submitted that providing additional information, the authorities should have granted her an opportunity to produce her financial status certificate.

¶32

In this connection it is further submitted that in various notification and guidelines issued in respect of appointment on compassionate ground, no such notification and/ or guidelines prescribe that the applicant should have submitted their respective financial status. Hence, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner should be re-considered by the SLC afresh by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit the requisite certificate of financial status through proper channel, i.e. the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Cachar.

¶33

Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for the Forest department by referring to the notification dated 11.10.2006 and the communication vide letter dated 11.07.2007 by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment and Forest Department and letter dated 04.08.2007 by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment and Forest has submitted that the application for compassionate appointment was required to be taken up by the SLC. He has submitted that as per the instruction received, instead of giving individual call letters to the persons who have applied for compassionate appointment, by virtue of newspaper advertisement dated 19.10.2014 published in the Assam Tribune, Dainik Agradoot and Neomiya Barta, all concerned were informed about the documents which were required to accompany the application for compassionate appointment and it was indicated to furnish the financial status and other information.

¶34

It is then submitted that as the document submitted by the petitioner did not

¶35

Page No.# 5/7

¶36

contain any document disclosing her financial status, the SLC, in its meeting dated 01.04.2015, did not recommend the case of the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground.

¶37

It is seen that as per the notification dated 11.10.2006 issued by the Government of Assam, Personnel (B) Department, it was required that the authorities/ appointing authorities and Administrative Departments were required to examine the compassionate case/ application as per the direction given in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra). This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was diligently pursuing the matter since submission of her application in July, 2000 and she had approached this Court by filing WP(C) 1654/02, therefore if her application was deficient due to the non-submission of financial status, the Forest Department was required to bring the deficiency to the notice of the petitioner. Merely because advertisements were published by the Forest Department in the 3 newspapers on 19.10.2014, such advertisement would not absolve the requirement of the concerned authorities to scrupulously adhere to the notification dated 11.10.2006 requiring the authorities to examine the compensation case/ applications.

¶38

It is also seen that before rejecting the application of the petitioner for not submitting her financial status, the SLC had not considered that since the petitioner was pursuing the matter diligently by filing two representations and had also approached this Court by filing WP(C) 1654/02 and, as such, the SLC ought to have granted one opportunity to the petitioner to produce her financial status certificate instead of rejecting the application after keeping it pending for 15 years.

¶39

When the petitioner had submitted her application in July, 2000 the requirement of furnishing the financial status certificate being not covered by the guidelines issued pursuant to the judgment rendered in the case of Achyut Ranjan (supra), this Court is inclined to hold that the authorities were required to put bring to the notice of the petitioner that she was required to furnish the deficient document, i.e. the financial status certificate.

¶40

Moreover, it is seen that although the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected, there is nothing on record to show that the minutes of the SLC dated 01.04.2015 was brought to the notice of the petitioner. Even as on

¶41

Page No.# 6/7

¶42

date, the minutes of the SLC meeting held on 01.04.2015 has not been placed on record, as such the present writ petition cannot be dismissed for not challenging the legality of the minutes of the SLC meeting held on 01.04.2015.

¶43

Accordingly this Court, having considered the materials on record has arrived at a conclusion that as the condition of submitting financial status for considering the case of appointment on compassionate grounds was brought in after the petitioner had submitted her application in July, 2000, the imposition of such condition ought to have been brought to the notice of the petitioner. Moreover, vide notification dated 11.10.2006, a duty was cast on the Administrative Department of Forest Department to examine the applications for compassionate appointment, the Forest Department acted in violation of the said notification dated 11.10.2006, for which the petitioner is not found to be at fault. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the SLC meeting minutes dated 01.04.2015, in so far as it relates to rejection of the claim of the petitioner be set aside and accordingly, the said SLC meeting minutes dated 01.04.2015 is partly set aside only so far it concerns rejection of the case of the petitioner, without interfering with other resolutions or decision adopted therein. Resultantly, liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit all her relevant document regarding her financial status as disclosed by the newspaper advertisement dated 19.10.2014 given the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Silchar along with a fresh application for compassionate appointment, which would be in continuation to her previous application submitted in the month of July, 2000 and the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Silchar Division Forest Officer, (respondent No.5) would examine her application within a period of 2 weeks from today and the said authority shall forward the continuation application of the petitioner to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force, Assam (respondent No.3) within a period of 2(two) weeks thereafter. Thereupon, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force, Assam shall also scrutinize the case of the petitioner in terms of the notification No. ABP.50/2006/58 dated 11.10.2006 and forward the same to the SLC on Compassionate Appointment represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam-cum-Chairman of the SLC, and the said authority shall re-consider the application of the petitioner afresh in their next SLC meeting.

¶44