Allowed

Mrs. Sangita Borah v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 Nov 2021WP(C)/3498/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment. The State Level Committee rejected a subsequent application because it was filed after 14 months of the deceased teacher's death. The court held that since the committee had earlier considered an application within time without raising the delay issue, it was unfair to now use that ground. The matter was remanded for

What did the court decide?

Directing the matter be remanded back to the State Level Committee for fresh consideration in its next available meeting.

Mrs. Sangita Borah Vs the State of Assam and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010106552021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3498/2021

¶5

MRS. SANGITA BORAH

¶6

W/O LATE MOHENDRA BORAH, VILL. BHOLABORI, P.O. BHOLABORI, DIST.LAKHIMPUR, PIN 787033, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06

¶9

2:THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT . OF ASSAM

¶10

CHAIRPERSON OF THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND UNDER EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 06

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (DPI) SECONDARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19

¶12

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR CHAIRMAN OF THE DIST. LEVEL COMMITTEE P.O. AND DIST. LAKHIMPUR PIN 787001 ASSAM.

¶13

5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS LAKHIMPUR DIST CIRCLE (LDC) NORTH LAKHIMPUR P.O. AND DIST. LAKHIMPUR

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

PIN 787001 ASSAM

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BORAH

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

12.11.2021

¶21

Heard Mr. D Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Girin Pegu, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 4 being the Chief Secretary to the State of Assam and the Deputy Commission, Lakhimpur and Ms. NM Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 3 and 5 being authorities under the Secondary Education Department of the Government of Assam.

¶22

The husband of the petitioner Mohendra Borah, who was a Subject Teacher in the Jawaharjyoti Higher Secondary School, Pothalipahar in the Lakhimpur district, died in harness on 14.12.2013 and on his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 08.05.2014, which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Subsequently, another application was made by the petitioner on 28.12.2015.

¶23

The application of the petitioner was considered by the DLC of Lakhimpur district in its meeting dated 24.02.2017 and there was a recommendation against the post of Assistant Teacher. The SLC in its meeting of 05.06.2017, rejected the recommendation on the ground that the petitioner does not have the required qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher and accordingly the matter was again placed before the DLC of Lakhimpur district. The DLC of

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

Lakhimpur in its subsequent resolution dated 16.03.2018 had recommended the petitioner against the post of Junior Assistant. When the subsequent recommendation of the DLC was placed before the SLC in its meeting of 04.02.2021, the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner was rejected by the SLC on the ground of the application having been made after a period of one year from the death of the person concerned.

¶26

Firstly, we have taken note of that two applications were submitted by the petitioner, of which, one is dated 08.05.2014 and definitely the said application was filed within the time period. Secondly, when the SLC had considered it on its earlier occasion, the rejection was not made on any ground of late submission of application form, meaning thereby that the SLC had abandoned the said possible reason for a rejection.

¶27

Having abandoned the possible reason on the earlier occasion by the SLC, we are of the view that it would be unfair to restore such ground on a subsequent consideration when there is another recommendation in favour of the petitioner.

¶28

For the aforesaid reasons, the matter is remanded back to the SLC for a fresh consideration in its next available meeting.

¶29

The writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Mrs. Sangita Borah v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Sangita Borah 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashmi Dutta Roy Dass Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Baharul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Smti. Velentina Ahmed Vs the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt of Assam and 4 Ors.

Bubul Sarma and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Nazim Uddin Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Siddique Hussain Vs Nazim Uddin and 10 Ors.