In a writ petition, the Gauhati High Court dismissed the claim for compassionate appointment for the petitioner, whose father died in harness, holding he did not meet APDCL guidelines and was not an aggrieved person.
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
GAHC010028562021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1111/2021
RANJAN DEKA
S/O LATE LOHIT CHANDRA DEKA, VILL. BORDUBI NAVAPUR GAON, P.O. HOOGRIJAN, P.S. BORDUBI, PIN 786601, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. AND 3 ORS BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTANBAZAR, GHY-1
2:THE CHAIRMAN
DIBRUGARH ELECTRICAL CIRCLE APDCL DIBRUGARH ASSAM.
3:THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
BORDUBI ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION APDCL BORDUBI DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM.
4:THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER
DULIAJAN ELECTRICAL DIVISION APDCL (UAR) DILIAJAN DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 14-03-2022
Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner’s father, who was working as a Lineman (Second Class) under the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in the office of Dibrugarh APDCL, died in harness on 09.11.2008.
2. The petitioner thereafter applied for compassionate appointment for a Grade-IV post. He submits that the petitioner has not been considered for compassionate appointment, though he has got all the educational qualification required for appointment to a said Grade-IV post.
3. Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned counsel for the State respondents, by referring to the guidelines laid down by the APDCL, which is reflected in the Order dated 30.04.2005, states that the petitioner cannot be considered for compassionate appointment, as he does not come within the provisions laid down for compassionate appointment in terms of the Office Order dated 30.04.2005.
4. The extract of the Office Order dated 30.04.2005, which provides for compassionate appointment in relation to the family members of employees of the APDCL, who die in harness, is reproduced as follows:-
Page No.# 3/4
“The existing provision of appointment on compassionate ground shall be limited to the following cases only prospectively.
(a) Serving employees killed due to extremist violence while on Board duty.
(b) Death of the employee due to accident or mishap while on the Board duty.
Further, the Board decided that the above two provisions will be subject to eligibility and qualification of the person concerned and lifting of ban on recruitment by the Board.”
5. It is an admitted fact by the learned counsels for both the parties that the petitioner does not come within the provisions enumerated above, to be considered for compassionate appointment. At this stage, the petitioner’s counsel submits that the APDCL has not been following the above guidelines, while appointing persons on compassionate ground and as such, the petitioner should be considered for compassionate appointment, even if the petitioner does not come within the provisions of the above office orders.
6. The above Office Order dated 30.04.2005, having clearly laid down the guidelines required for considering a person for compassionate appointment, this Court is of the view that just because some person might have been given compassionate appointment in violation of the above office order, does not mean that this Court should perpetuate the illegal action allegedly undertaken earlier.
7. As the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person, in so far as no right of his has been violated, this Court is of the view that no case for compassionate appointment has been made out in terms of the guidelines laid down by the APDCL.
Page No.# 4/4
8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is an eligible candidate for compassionate appointment under APDCL guidelines despite his father dying in harness.
Whether the Appellant Body is obligated to perpetuate illegal past appointments to satisfy applicant rights.
Whether the petitioner has suffered a violation of any legal right justifying a writ remedy for compassionate appointment.
RANJAN DEKA
THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.
BIJULI BHAWAN
THE CHAIRMAN DIBRUGARH ELECTRICAL CIRCLE APDCL
THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER BORDUBI ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION APDCL
THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER DULIAJAN ELECTRICAL DIVISION APDCL
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
