Allowed

Jenifar Mustafa Laskar v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Jun 2022WP(C)/1657/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a compassionate appointment application. The petitioner, who was 12 years old when applying, was rejected because she was below the 18-year age limit. The Court set aside the rejection, noting the authorities' delay and holding that equitable principles prevent using past age to reject a later consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection dated 05.10.2021 set aside; matter remanded to next available DLC of Hailakandi for fresh consideration.

Jenifar Mustafa Laskar Vs the State of Assam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010044312022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1657/2022

¶5

JENIFAR MUSTAFA LASKAR

¶6

D/O- LATE MISBAHUR ROHMAN LASKAR, VILL- NIAMOTHPUR, P.OSARBANANDA PUR, P.S- LALA, DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN-788163

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY., TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, ASSAM.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 ASSAM.

¶11

3:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT

¶12

REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM.

¶13

4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE HAILAKANDI FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI ASSAM DIST. HAILAKANDI

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

ASSAM PIN-788151 5:THE DIST. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER HAILAKANDI DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-78815

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S B LASKAR

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU

¶18

Page No.# 3/4

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 06-06-2022

¶22

Heard Ms. N. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 5, being the authorities in the Elementary Education Department of the Government of Assam. Also heard Mr. S.R. Barua, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively being the Chief Secretary of the State of Assam and the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi.

¶23

The father of the petitioner who was a Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science in the Lala Rural College in the Hailakandi District died in harness on 09.11.2009. On his death the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 02.02.2010. At the relevant time, when the petitioner submitted her application, she was aged about 12 years. The application was placed before the DLC of Hailakandi District in its meeting of 05.10.2021, but was rejected by providing that on the day when the application was submitted the petitioner was aged 12 years 01 month 01 day.

¶24

The DLC definitely had the occasion to consider the said application at the relevant point of time when it was made and had it been so considered, it could have been rejected by providing that the applicant was aged about 12 years 01 month 01 day when the application was made. But no reason is forthcoming as to why it was not placed before the DLC at the relevant time and ultimately placed

¶25

Page No.# 4/4

¶26

on 05.10.2021. The delay and laches appears to have been due to the authorities in not placing it before the DLC immediately after the application was submitted.

¶27

Law of equity cannot allow an authority to take advantage of its own laches and allow it to now reject it saying that the applicant was 12 years 01 month 01 day when the application was made.

¶28

Further, in paragraph 19 of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in N.C. Santosh vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 , it has been held that the law governing compassionate appointment is that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of the claim for compassionate appointment.

¶29

Definitely when the application was considered on 05.10.2021, the petitioner was not below the age of 18 years. From such point of view also the rejection on the ground that at the time of submission of application, the petitioner was aged 12 years 01 month 01 day is unacceptable in law and accordingly, the impugned rejection by the DLC of Hailakandi District dated 05.10.2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to be placed before the next available DLC of Hailakandi to give a fresh consideration as per law.

¶30

The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Jenifar Mustafa Laskar v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jenifar Mustafa Laskar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahatma Sevagram High School Vs Preetom Saikia and 2 Ors.

Kamleswar Brahma Vs Preetom Saikia and 2 Ors.

Swapnendu Bhushan Chanda Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

The Governing Body of Barkhetri College Vs Lokman Ali and 3 Ors.

Dr. Hemanta Kr. Chaliha Vs B. Kalyan Chakraborty and Anr.

Dr. Bhaskar Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.