Allowed

Rubul Gogoi v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Dec 2021WP(C)/1001/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court examined a writ petition regarding the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment following his father's death. The Court directed the District Level Committee to reconsider the application for vacancy as originally deferred, rejecting reliance on a two-year time bar and directing appropriate recommendation or a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to place application before next available DLC for consideration as required in earlier resolution; application not to be rejected on two-year period ground.

Rubul Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010026372021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1001/2021

¶5

RUBUL GOGOI

¶6

S/O LATE CHANDRA GOGOI, R/O VILL. JAMIRA KAOW GAON, P.O. DHAMAL GAON, P.S. BARBARUAH, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN 786004

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPTT., ASSAM, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 787006

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL DEFENSE AND COMMANDANT GENERAL OF HOME GUARDS

¶11

ASSAM BELTOLA GUWAHATI 787018

¶12

3:THE DIST. LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT

¶13

REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 787001

¶14

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶15

KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 78700

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D GOGOI

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

08.12.2021

¶22

Heard Mr. D Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. MD Bora, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing for all the respondents.

¶23

The father of the petitioner Late Chandra Gogoi who was a Grade IV employee in the District Home Guard Office died in harness on 19.04.2014 and on his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 25.04.2014. The said application was considered by the DLC of Kamrup (Metro) in its meeting of 05.06.2015 wherein a view was taken that the application of the petitioner will be considered again in the next DLC, if vacancy arises.

¶24

The grievance raised is that since then the appointment of the petitioner had not been further placed before the DLC. Considering the nature of the grievance raised and the earlier view of the DLC in its meeting of 05.06.2015, we direct that the application of the petitioner be placed before the next available DLC of Kamrup(Metro) for its consideration and as required in the earlier resolution of the DLC dated 05.06.2015. In the event vacancy exists and the petitioner is found entitled, appropriate recommendation be made or

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

otherwise a reasoned order be passed.

¶27

If the application was earlier placed before the DLC subsequent to the meeting dated 05.06.2015, the resolution thereof be communicated to the petitioner and in such event, the requirement of placing it again would not arise.

¶28

It is provided that although the respondents in the information provided under the RTI dated 28.12.2020 had provided that claim of the petitioner would not be required to be considered again inasmuch as the period of two years had elapsed, in the meantime, we are unable to agree with such view taken, inasmuch as, firstly as per DLC of 05.06.2015 itself, the petitioner ought to have been considered against any vacant post in any other department as provided in the OM dated 01.06.2015 and secondly, the said provision laid down by the Court would not be applicable in the case as the DLC had on its own deferred its consideration in its earlier meeting by requiring it to be placed in the subsequent meeting. Accordingly, the application be not rejected on the ground of two years having elapsed and the same be considered on merit as indicated above.

¶29

6. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Rubul Gogoi v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rubul Gogoi v. the State of Assam and 3 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

Shri Shah Jahangir Alom Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Anjali Sah Vs the Union of India and 11 Ors.

GO-2518M M.L Agarwal Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Barsha Devi @ Barasa Devi Vs Kumar Sanjay Krishna

Indrajit Borah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Shahid Hossain Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.