Allowed

Mandira Debnath v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Dec 2021WP(C)/3235/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the immediate request for compassionate appointment but recognized the petitioner's accrued legal right. It directed the Principal Secretary to place the DLC recommendation before the SLC for a reasoned decision.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Principal Secretary to place the DLC recommendation before the SLC for a reasoned decision, or inform the petitioner if it was already placed.

Mandira Debnath Vs the State of Assam and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010024752017

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3235/2017

¶5

MANDIRA DEBNATH

¶6

D/O. SWAPAN KUMAR DEBNATH, R/O. JYOTIKUCHI, DHUPALIA, P.O. SAUKUCHI, GUWAHATI-781040, DIST. KAMRUPM, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, HEALTH, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM.

¶9

2:KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL

¶10

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DIPHU P.O. DIPHU ASSAM.

¶11

3:JOINT SECRETARY

¶12

DEPTT. OF PERSONAL B KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU ASSAM.

¶13

4:EXECUTIVE MEMBER

¶14

HEALTH and FAMILY WELFARE DEPTT. KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL P.O. DIPHU ASSAM.

¶15

5:AMOR SINGAR

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

S/O. LT. SARET SINGNAR O/O. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU ASSAM

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.T DAS

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.B GOGOISC, HEALTH.

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶21

ORDER

¶22

10-12-2021

¶23

Heard Ms. T. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department, appearing for respondent No. 1 and Ms. S. Kemprai, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. None appears for respondent No. 5.

¶24

The office note dated 24-10-2017 shows that A/D Card has been received in respect of service of notice on respondent No. 5. The subsequent office note dated 31-10-2020 shows that although A/D Card in respect of respondent No. 5 has been received, but the respondent No. 5 has not entered appearance.

¶25

The father of the petitioner, Swapan Kr. Debnath, who was working as Surveillance Inspector in the office of District Malaria Officer, Diphu, died-inharness on 17-03-2012. On his death, the petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground. The said application was placed before the District Level Committee (DLC) of Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council Secretariat. In the meeting of the DLC, held on 03-07-2014 and by the resolution thereof, the petitioner was recommended for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

The grievance raised in this petition is that inspite of being so recommended, no further action has been undertaken by the respondent authority and consequently, a direction has been sought for to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground against the post of Surveillance Worker and Field Worker. The relief sought for to appoint the petitioner cannot be entertained at this stage in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, we have noticed that as the petitioner was recommended for compassionate appointment by the DLC in its meeting dated 03-07-2014, a legal right has been accrued in favour of the petitioner that the said recommendation be placed before the SLC for its consideration.

¶28

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Principal Secretary, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Diphu, to place the recommendation of the DLC of KAAC dated 03-07-2014, made in favour of the petitioner, before the next available SLC and upon the same being placed, the SLC shall take a reasoned decision thereof. On the other hand, if the records reveal that the recommendation of the DLC dated 03-07-2014 had earlier been placed before the SLC, the petitioner be communicated the order that might have been passed thereof.

¶29

The petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above.

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Mandira Debnath v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandira Debnath v. the State of Assam and 4 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

Subhobroto Mazumdar Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Smti Juri Pathak Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Promud Kumar Baruah Vs Ramendra Nath Sharma

Md. Allaluddin @ Ala Uddin Vs the State of Assam

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

Bapan Mandal Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.