The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner, whose father died before a specific Government Office Memorandum was issued. The court held that the scheme prevalent at the time of the employee's death, not the time of application consideration, governs eligibility.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010130462021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4987/2021
BAHAR UDDIN LASKAR
S/O. LT. SARIF UDDIN LASKAR, VILL. LALANG PT. I, P.O. PAILAPOOL, PS. LAKHIPUR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY CUM CHAIRMAN STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT. (PHE) DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006.
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT. ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036.
4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR ASSAM.
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Page No.# 2/4
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT (PHE) SILCHAR DIVISION NO.II LAKHIPUR PAILAPOOL CACHAR
6:THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PHE LAKHIPUR SUB-DIVISION PAILAPOOL LAKHIPUR CACHAR
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N H BARBHUIYA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 08-12-2021
Heard Mr. N.H. Barbhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the petitioner’s father died in harness on 20.05.2015, while serving as Pump Operator in the Office of the respondent No.6.
Page No.# 3/4
Department/Office to take up the matter with other Departments/Offices of the government to provide appointment on compassionate ground.
“15. If sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to accommodate the persons in the waiting list for compassionate appointment, it is open to the administrative Department/Office to take up the matter with other Departments/Offices of the Government to provide at an early appointment on compassionate grounds to those in the waiting list.”
Page No.# 4/4
for considering the application. However, in Civil Appeal No.6903 & 6904 of 2021 in the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. –vs- Ashish Awasthi and The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. –vs- Baalendu Yadav , the Apex Court has relied and acted upon the earlier judgments of the Apex Court in Indian Bank & Others vs. Promila & Another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729 and State of Madhya Pradesh & Others vs. Amit Shrivas, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 496 wherein, it was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee is the only scheme to be considered while deciding an application for compassionate appointment.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the law prevailing at the time of the employee's death or at the time of application consideration governs compassionate appointment eligibility.
Whether an Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 applies to a parent who died on 20.05.2015.
Whether a compassionate appointment application should be allowed when vacancies were unavailable at the time of consideration.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N.C. Santosh vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶35
(2020) 7 SCC 617 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Ashish AwasthiFollowed¶37
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. –vs- Ashish Awasthi (2021)
Indian Bank & Others vs. Promila & AnotherExplained¶37
(2020) 2 SCC 729 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh & Others vs. Amit ShrivasExplained¶37
(2020) 10 SCC 496 · Who else cites this
BAHAR UDDIN LASKAR
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
