Dismissed

Rajdeep Das v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Mar 2022WP(C)/1756/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application and relied on a previous judgment rehailing a similar case. The Court held that the petitioner's six-year delay in approaching the Court constituted laches, precluding the exercise of discretion to grant relief.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed.

Rajdeep Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010045292022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1756/2022

¶5

RAJDEEP DAS

¶6

S/O- LATE SWADESH RANJAN DAS, R/O- VILL.- KAWDIGHIRPAR, P.O. NILAMBAZAR, DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN- 788722.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (P AND RD), DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶10

2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC)

¶11

FOR SELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND UNDER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (P AND RD)

¶12

REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

¶13

PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (P AND RD) GUWAHATI ASSAM

¶14

3:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC)

¶15

FOR RECOMMENDATION OF CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ DISTRICT ASSAM

¶16

4:THE COMMISSIONER

¶17

PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (P AND RD0 JURIPAR PANJABARI

¶18

Page No.# 2/4

¶19

GUWAHATI-37.

¶20

5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARIMGANJ ZILLA PARISHAD P.O. P.S. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM-788710

¶21

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D CHAKRABARTY

¶22

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶23

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Date : 11-03-2022

¶26

Heard Mr. D. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the State Level Committee (SLC) vide it’s meeting minutes dated 31.10.2015.

¶27

He submits that one Pallab Chakraborty, whose application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the same SLC meeting minutes on 31.10.2015 on the same ground as the petitioner, i.e. “want of educational qualification” had made a challenge to the SLC meeting minutes by way of WP(C) 4210/2017. He submits that this Court, vide judgment and order dated 24.01.2018, disposed of WP(C) 4210/2017 by setting aside the SLC meeting minutes dated 31.10.2015 and directed the SLC to reconsider the case of Sri Pallab Chakraborty in its next meeting. He submits that as the petitioner’s case is similar to the case of Sri Pallab Chakraborty in WP(C) 4210/2017, a similar order should be passed in this case.

¶28

Page No.# 3/4

¶29

Ms. S. Barua, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 & Mr. A. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 4 and 5 submit that the present writ petition should be dismissed due to laches in the matter. Mr. A. Roy, further submits that for a person to be appointed against a Grade-III post, the candidate has to be a graduate. However, the petitioner at the relevant point of time did not have the graduate degree.

¶30

On considering the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court after more than 6(six) years, after his application was rejected by the SLC on 31.10.2015, this Court is of the view that the present case is hit by laches and delay. Further, Sri Pallab Chakraborty, had made a challenge to the SLC meeting minutes in the year 2017 and the writ petition had been disposed of vide judgment and order dated 24.01.2018. The petitioner on the other hand, has approached this Court more than 4(four) years after the judgment and order dated 24.01.2018 passed in WP(C) 4210/2017 and six years after his application was dismissed by the SLC.

¶31

In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion due to laches and delay.

¶32

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Rajdeep Das v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajdeep Das 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

Altaf Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Probudh Ch. Hazarika Vs Tate of Assam and 7 Ors.

Ambiya Khatun Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Hasina Begum and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Manab Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ananda Gohain Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.