Allowed

Kiran Sinha, v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC20 Dec 2021I.A.(Civil)/2245/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court corrected clerical errors regarding the district name in an earlier interim order. It also clarified the legal duty of the District Level Committee to evaluate vacancies and appointed a fresh consideration for the petitioner's claim, remanding the matter to the DLC of Cachar.

What did the court decide?

The I.A. was allowed; the recommendation of the DLC and rejection of the SLC were set aside; the matter was remanded to the DLC of Cachar for fresh consideration after evaluating available vacancies.

Kiran Sinha, Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010218232021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2245/2021

¶5

KIRAN SINHA,

¶6

S/O LT. KRISHNA CHANDRA SINHA, R/O LANE NO. 23 BY LANE NO. 2, P.O. SILCHAR, P.S. TARAPUR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 788007

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6

¶9

2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶10

ASSAM JURIPAR PANJABARI GUWAHATI 781037

¶11

3:THE JOINT SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶12

PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (B) DEPTT. JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 ASSAM.

¶13

4:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVVELOPMENT ASSAM JURIPAR PANJABARI GUWAHATI 781037

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

5:THE CHAIRMAN DLC CUM THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR

¶17

SILCHAR ASSAM.

¶18

6:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶19

CACHAR ZILAPARISHAD SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM.

¶20

7:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER RAJABAZAR DEVELOPMENT BLOCK CACHAR SILCHA

¶21

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K A MAZUMDER

¶22

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D.

¶23

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Date : 20-12-2021

¶26

Heard Mr. K A Mazumdar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents in the PNRD.

¶27

In paragraph 3 of the order dated 08.12.2021 in WP(C)/4946/2021, the last sentence is sought to be corrected to the extent that DLC of Cachar district and not the DLC of Goalpara district.

¶28

Accordingly, the last sentence of paragraph 3 would be read as follows:

¶29

“3. Mr. M Nath, learned counsel for the P & RD Department provides a further clarification that the SLC was of the view that no vacancy under the 5% quota for compassionate appointment was available. We are not on the legality of the rejection by the SLC in its meeting of 15.02.2019. What we take note is that a legal duty is cast upon the DLC to evaluate the vacancies that may be available and thereafter make

¶30

Page No.# 3/3

¶31

recommendation against the vacancies that are identified. The DLC cannot recommend a candidate by stating that it is subject to availability. We find illegality in the resolution of the DLC of Cachar district in its meeting of 11.08.2016.”

¶32

Similarly, in the third line of paragraph 4 of the order dated 08.12.2021 in WP(C)/4946/2021also, it should be read as DLC of Cachar district instead of DLC of Goalpara district.

¶33

Paragraph 4 of the order dated 08.12.2021 in WP(C)/4946/2021 be now read as follows: “4. Accordingly, the recommendation of the DLC as well as the rejection of the SLC on the ground of non-availability of vacancy stands set aside. The matter is accordingly remanded back to the DLC of Cachar district for a fresh consideration of the claim of the petitioner after evaluating the vacancies that were available at that relevant point of time and upon the vacancies being identified to make the required recommendation. In doing so, the DLC may also take note of the office memorandum dated 01.06.2015 that in the event, vacancies are not available in the department concerned, there is also a requirement of law to consider the claim of the petitioner against any vacant post that may be available in any other department.”

¶34

I.A. stands allowed in the above terms.

¶35

The order dated 08.12.2021 in WP(C)/4946/2021 be now read by incorporating the aforesaid corrections.

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Kiran Sinha, v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Sinha, v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheo Kumar Ram Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Mandira Debnath Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Bapan Mandal Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Nazim Uddin Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Pabitra Kumar Ray Vs the State of Assam

Dipar Boro Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.