Allowed

Bipul Das v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 May 2022WP(C)/1989/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compassionate appointment after father's death. Court held State Level Committee's 'considered' observation was inadequate and directed re-consideration with a definite decision.

What did the court decide?

Directing State respondents to place petitioner's application before the next State Level Committee for re-consideration and to take a definite decision with proper reasons.

Bipul Das Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010061562020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1989/2020

¶5

BIPUL DAS S/O- LT. NINGNA RAM DAS, R/O- GOSAIGAON, WARD NO.-3, P.O. GOSAIGAON, P.S. GOSAIGAON, DIST.- KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 783360

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOREST DEPTT., ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GHY-06

¶8

2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS ARANYA BHAWAN PUNJABARI ROAD GHY-37 ASSAM 3:THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS WESTERN ASSAM CIRCLE KOKRAJHAR PIN- 783370 ASSAM 4:DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER KACHUGAON DIVISION GOSAIGAON DIST.- KOKRAJHAR PIN- 783350 ASSA

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J KALITA

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶11

Page No.# 2/3

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 12-05-2022

¶15

Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Borah, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶16

2. The petitioner’s case is that the State Level Committee (SLC) in its Meeting Minutes dated 01.04.2015 has neither recommended nor rejected the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment and has kept the fate of the petitioner’s application in limbo.

¶17

3. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner’s father, who was working in the Forest Department died in harness on 18.02.2006. The petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment dated 23.05.2006 was considered by the SLC on 01.04.2015, wherein the observation made by the SLC was that it had considered the petitioner’s application.

¶18

4. The SLC observation “Considered” does not indicate whether the petitioner’s case has been accepted for recommendation or rejected. As such, this Court is of the view that the petitioner’s application would have to be reconsidered by the SLC, who should thereafter make a definite finding as to whether the petitioner’s application is to be recommended or rejected by giving proper reasons.

¶19

5. Accordingly, the State respondents are directed to place the petitioner’s

¶20

Page No.# 3/3

¶21

application before the next SLC for re-consideration, who shall thereafter take a decision on the same by giving a definite discernible decision. This would be in consonance with the Order dated 14.12.2018 passed in a similar case, i.e., WP(C) No. 7976/2017.

¶22

6. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶23

Comparing Assistant

Bipul Das v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipul Das v. the State of Assam and 3 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

Bhanumati Roy @ Bhanumati Barman Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Suren Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Nabajyoti Borah Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

REGT.NO.101287162 Gordhan Lal Paliwal and 3 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

G O - 004293 N Sri Suryawanshi Pandurang Sayaji Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

REGT.NO.101287162 Gordhan Lal Paliwal and 10 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.