Remanded

Nitul Sarma v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 May 2022WP(C)/2918/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by the son of a deceased government employee seeking compassionate appointment. The court held impugned rejection was flawed due to conflict with prior record of application. Matter remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), for fresh consideration of the application on its own merit before the next available meeting of the District Level Committee.

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

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010081612022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2918/2022

¶5

NITUL SARMA

¶6

S/O- LT. MAHENDRA NATH SARMA, VILL. CHATRIBARI, K C CHOUDHURY ROAD, P.O.- REHABARI, P.S. PALTAN BAZAR, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM. KAHILIPARA GHY.- 781019.

¶11

3:THE DIST. ELE. EDUCATION OFFICER (DEEO) KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT GUWAHATI- 781001.

¶12

4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER KAMRUP(M) PIN- 781001. 5:THE DY. INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS KAMRUP(M) PIN- 781001 ASSAM

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 06.05.2022

¶19

Heard Mr. PK Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. PN Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 being the authorities under the Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam and Mr. SR Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro).

¶20

The father of the petitioner Mahendra Sarma who was working as Grade-IV employee in the Government Urban Senior Basic School, Chatribari, Guwahati died in harness on 18.03.2004 and on his death, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 23.04.2004. The communication dated 08.07.2005 from the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Elementary Education Department makes it discernable that the application of the petitioner was given some consideration. In other words, we have to understand that the said application was on record and was also processed. Subsequently, when the application was placed before the DLC on 01.02.2022, it stood rejected by providing that the application was made after a period of one year of the death of the Government servant. The said conclusion of the DLC appears to be in conflict with the provision of the communication dated 08.07.2005 which give indication that the application was on record at the time when the said communication was made.

¶21

Accordingly, the matter stands remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) for a fresh consideration who shall consider the application of the petitioner on its own merit as per law to be placed before the next available meeting of the DLC.

¶22

Writ petition disposed of as indicated herein above.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

Comparing Assistant

Nitul Sarma v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitul Sarma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrinal Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Pranab Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Srimanta Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. E

Farook Rahman Khan Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Priyadarshini Kurmi and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 15 Ors.

Abdul Aziz Vs B. Kalyan Charavarthy and Anr.