Allowed

Miss Gitali Borgohain v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 May 2022WP(C)/1520/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition by a daughter of a deceased Section Assistant seeking compassionate appointment. The Court directed the District Level Committee to reconsider the case under Clause 15 of an Office Memorandum regarding inter-departmental transfers when no internal vacancies exist and quashed the State Level Committee's rejection.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's case referred for reconsideration under Clause 15 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015; SLC meeting minutes dated 21.02.2019 set aside insofar as they relate to the petitioner.

Miss Gitali Borgohain Vs the State of Assam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010039252022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1520/2022

¶5

MISS GITALI BORGOHAIN

¶6

D/O LATE AMIO BORGOHAIN, R/O VILL- GOHAINGAON, P.O.-DHEMAJI, P.S.-DHEMAJI, DIST-DHEMAJI, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM

¶9

2:THE CHIEF SECRETARY-CUM-CHAIRMAN STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 ASSAM

¶10

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 DIST- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

¶11

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DHEMAJI WATER RESOURCES DIVISION DHEMAJI ASSAM

¶12

5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHEMAJI CUM-THE CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE DHEMAJI DIST-DHEMAJI ASSAM

¶13

6:THE DEPUTY SECREARY (E) TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P TALUKDAR

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WATER RESOURCE

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

– B E F O R E – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 09-05-2022

¶20

Heard Mr. P. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Chetia, learned standing counsel, Water Resources Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 & 6 and Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos.2 & 5.

¶21

The petitioner’s father died in harness on 09.05.2005 while working as a Section Assistant in the Office of the respondent No.4. As the petitioner’s father expired on 09.05.2005, the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment on 21.06.2005. As the District Level Committee (DLC) did not take any steps for consideration of the petitioner’s case, the petitioner filed a writ petition, which was registered as WP(C) No.6805/2014. In the meantime, the DLC recommended the case of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner withdrew WP(C) No.6805/2014 on 11.09.2015.

¶22

The State Level Committee (SLC) having slept over the matter, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of another writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No.5682/2015. As the SLC in its meeting minutes dated 27.09.2016 rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the application for compassionate appointment has lost its “compassionate ground condition” as more than 17(seventeen) years had elapsed after the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner withdrew WP(C) No.5682/2015 on 20.02.2017. Subsequently, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.1475/2017 challenging the SLC meeting minutes dated 27.09.2016.

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

WP(C) No.1475/2017 was disposed of vide order dated 23.02.2018, by directing the respondents to place the petitioner’s case before the SLC for reconsideration and consequently, the SLC meeting minutes dated 27.09.2016 was set aside.

¶25

Subsequent to the above, the petitioner was informed that the SLC in its meeting held on 21.02.2019 had rejected the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment without giving reasons for the same. The petitioner thus has filed the present writ petition.

¶26

During the course of the proceedings of this case, the learned standing counsel for the Water Resource Department has submitted the SLC meeting minutes dated 21.02.2019, which shows that the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment had been rejected by the SLC during reconsideration, on the ground that there was no available vacancy earmarked for appointment under compassionate ground in the cadre of Grade-IV Khalasi, under the establishment of the Dhemaji Water Resource Division.

¶27

The petitioner’s counsel submits that as there is no available vacancy earmarked for appointment under compassionate ground in the cadre of Grade-IV Khalasi under the Dhemaji Water Resource Division, the petitioner’s case can be considered under Clause 15 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015.

¶28

Clause 15 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 states as

¶29

follows:-

¶30

“ (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

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

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.”

¶33

As the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner in terms of Clause 15 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, the DLC, Dhemaji is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of Clause 15 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. Consequently, the SLC meeting minutes dated 21.02.2019, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, is set aside.

¶34

Copy of the SLC meeting minutes dated 21.02.2019 is made a part of the record and marked as Annexure “X”.

¶35

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶36

J U D G E

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Miss Gitali Borgohain v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss Gitali Borgohain 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

Manash Doloi @ Manash Doley Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Mente Pait Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Hema Nath Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Siemngul Hmar and 27 Ors. Vs Nitin Khade and 2 Ors.

Santosh Kumar Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Hiren Ch Borah Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.