Allowed

Debaraj Sharma v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Mar 2021WP(C)/2674/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeks compassionate appointment for his father who died in harness. After earlier rejection due to late application, State Level Committee rejected it again for pending over two years. Court held rejection unfair as delay was authority's fault and directed reconsideration for appointment.

What did the court decide?

The State Level Committee directed to reconsider the case and recommend the petitioner for appointment to a Grade-IV post at the earliest.

Debaraj Sharma Vs the State of Assam and 5… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010088462020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2674/2020

¶5

DEBARAJ SHARMA S/O- LT. PRABHASH SARMA, R/O- MALIBAGAN, P.O. KHARGHULI, P.S. LATASIL, PIN- 781004, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, P.W. DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶8

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER ASSAM PWD(R) ROAD DIVISION GHY 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. ROAD DIVISION (RURAL) GHY-1 4:THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. HAJO SUB DIVISION DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM 5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE GHY DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 6:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR

¶9

Page No.# 2/5

¶10

GHY-

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 02-03-2021

¶16

Heard Mrs. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for all the respondents.

¶17

The petitioner’s father who was a Grade-IV employee working in the Office of State Executive Enginner, PWD, Hajo Sub-Division died while in harness on 10.02.2013. Being left behind by the only bread earner of the family, the petitioner who is the eldest son submitted a representation on 01.06.2013 to the competent authority requesting for appointment to any grade IV post on compassionate ground. On 14.11.2017, the concerned District Level Committee held a meeting for considering the applications requesting for compassionate appointment. In that meeting the case of the petitioner was also recommended by noting that he had submitted his application within one year from the date of his father’s death. On receipt of the recommendation of the Distreict Level Committee, the State Level Committee considered the case of the petitioner in their meeting held on 31.12.2018 in the office chamber of the Chief Secretary Govt. of Assam. But the petitioner’s case was rejected on the ground that he had applied for appointment on compassionate ground only after one year from the date of his father’s death.

¶18

Aggrieved by the rejection of the State Level Committee the petitioner came before this Court by filing WP(C) No. 2398/2019. The writ petition was disposed of on 12.04.2019 and the order reads as follows :-

¶19

“ 12.04.2019

¶20

Heard Ms. R. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned State Counsel for the respondents.

¶21

2 Considering the nature of the case, this Court is of the view that the present petition can be disposed of at this stage.

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

3. The petitioner’s father, namely, Late Prabhash Sarma, who was working in Grade-IV post in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Hajo Sub-Division in the District of Kamrup, died in harness on 10.02.2013 leaving behind the petitioner and other dependents. Soon thereafter, the petitioner’s mother submitted an application for appointment of the petitioner to the Executive Engoineer on 1.6.2013 copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-D to the petition. The said application was considered by the concerned DLC in the meeting held on 1.3.2016 which recommended appointment of the petitioner to a Grade-IV post under die-in-harness scheme.

¶24

4. Under normal circumstance, such a recommendation of the DLC ought to be accepted by the State Level Committee (SLC) unless other genuine reasons exist to the contrary.

¶25

5. However, dwhens the case of the petitioner was considered by the SLC in the meeting hdld on 31.12.2018, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had applied after one year from the date of death of his father.

¶26

6. The petitioner submits that this is contrary to the records as it is clearly mentioned in the4 proceedings of the DLC meeting that the application was submitted within one year of death of the petitioner’s father. Accordinglyly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid rejection by the SLC is perverse and illegal and is liable to be interfered with.

¶27

7. This Court having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the materials on record, is prima facie satisfied that the decision of the SLC is contrary to the records. However, since the matter is taken up at the motion stage, the matter is remanded to the SLC comcerned to verify the records, specifically the records of the DLC in which it has been mentioned specifically that the petitioner had submitted the application within one year of the death of his father, which has also been substantiated by annexing a copy of the application dated 1.6.2013 as Annexure-D to this petition.

¶28

Page No.# 4/5

¶29

8. If it is found that the application for appointment under die-in-harness scheme was indeed submitted on 1.6.2013, under normal circumstances the petitioner shall be recommended for appointment in Grade-IV post as recommended by the DLC and necessary ppointment order be issued by the authorities. The SLC shall accdept the recommendation pof the DLC unless other disabling grounds are available.

¶30

9. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken by the authorities by placing the matter befoe the SLC in the next meeting or within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, whichever is earlier.

¶31

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. “

¶32

Following the direction given by this Court in the above given order the SLC in their meeting held on 23.12.2019 once again considered the case of the petitioner but rejected the same on a different ground which reads as follows:- “ application of the applicant was pending for recommendation for more than two years. Therefore, application stands disposed of .”

¶33

Aggrieved by this second time rejection of his application by the SLC the petitioner is herein before this Court once again through this instant writ petition.

¶34

It is submitted by Mrs. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the order dated 12.04.2019 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 2498/2019 the State Level Committee was only to see and confirm as to whether the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was submitted within one year from the date on which his father died. As such, the State Level Committee could not have rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the application had spent its force as it has remained pending for more than 2 years.

¶35

Mr. Nath, the learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate by referring to the last sentence of para 18 of the order dated 12.04.2019 submitted that though it is true that the SLC was to re-examine the case of the petitioner based on the date of the submission of his application the Court also had given liberty to see if there are other grounds based on which the petitioner may not be eligible for appointment under the scheme.

¶36

On perusal of the DLC minutes which is the first authority to examine and recommend the applications of those who are seeking appointment on compenssionate ground it can be seen that the petitioner had submitted his application within one year from the day his father died. Therefore, this Court, while pssing the order dated 12.04.2019 in WP(C) No. 2498/2019 was of the prima-facie view that the decision of the SLC was contrary to

¶37

Page No.# 5/5

¶38

the record and hence directed the SLC to verify the record. Therefore, the SLC should have verified the record as directed and if it is found that the petitioner had submitted his application within one year from the date on which his father died, recommend his case for appointment. But the respondents came up with a new ground and rejected the application of the petitioner. Though I agree with the submission of Mr. Nath that this Court had given the SLC some liberty but I am unable to accept the reason given for rejection of the petitioner’s case in the minutes of the SLC dated 23.12.2019. Because the fact that the application of the applicant was pending for more than 2 years was not the fault of the petitioner and therefore he can not be punished for the same. Fault in the delay, if any, is of the respondents themselves and not of the petitioner who submitted his application in time. Hence, it would be unreasonable and unfair to let the petitioner to suffer for no fault on his.

¶39

In view of the conclusion arrived at and the reasons given, the SLC is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner and recommend him for appointment to the post of Grade IV at the earliest. Needless but the SLC should consider the case of the petitioner in their next meeting.

¶40

The petition is disposed of.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Debaraj Sharma v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debaraj Sharma v. the State of Assam and 5 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

Rana Ali @ Md. Rana Ali and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Lenitha Marak Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Pradip Kumar Basumatary and 6 Ors. Vs Biren Ch. Phukan, IAS

Sab Tera Bibi Vs the State of Assam

Ratan Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Smti Fulmati Das Vs Rajesh Kemprai and 6 Ors.