Allowed

Sandip Bhor v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Jun 2022WP(C)/3466/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Gauhati High Court allowed the application of an SC candidate rejected for a compassionate appointment. The Court held that age eligibility must be determined from the date of application and set aside the impugned order, directing authorities to reconsider the candidature.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28.03.2019 set aside; application restored for reconsideration solely based on age at date of application; no bar on future consideration.

Sandip Bhor Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010116822019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3466/2019

¶5

SANDIP BHOR

¶6

S/O LT. BALAM BHOR, R/O VILL. MASIMPUR PART-1, P.O. SUBEDAR BASTI, DIST.-CACHAR (ASSAM), PIN-788003

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI- 110001

¶9

2:DIRECTOR GENERAL STAFF DUTIES DTE GEN STAFF DUTIES SD-7 (ADM CIV) GENERAL STAFF BRANCH INTEGRATED HQ MOD (ARMY) SENA BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110011

¶10

3:GOC HQ 41 SUB AREA PIN-908641 C/O 99 APO

¶11

4:HQ EASTERN COMMAND (GS/SD) PIN-908542 C/O 99 APO

¶12

5:STATION HEADQUARTERS SILCHAR (ASSAM) MASIMPUR PIN-900380

¶13

Page No.# 2/6

¶14

C/O 99 APO

¶15

6:BOARD OF OFFICERS STATION HEADQUARTERS SILCHAR (ASSAM) MASIMPUR PIN-900380 C/O 99 AP

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S D PURKAYASTHA

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 08.06.2022

¶21

Heard Mr. S.D. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents.

¶22

The father of the petitioner was serving as a Conservancy Safaiwala in the establishment of Station Head Quarter, Masimpur Military Station, Silchar, Assam, C/o 99 APO, and he had died-in-harness on 02.10.2011. On 05.10.2017, the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground and his application was forwarded to the Head Quarter, 41 Sub Area, vide letter dated 21.07.2017, but the same was received back by letter dated 26.10.2017 with the following reasons:

¶23

“(a) As per para 2, 4 of DOPT OM ibid, vacancies under 5% quota for compassionate appointments are to be worked out from the vacancies approved by the Govt for direct recruitment under annual direct recruitment plan. MoD has pointed out that the consy estt has been sanctioned by the local army authorities and not by

¶24

Page No.# 3/6

¶25

the MoD and consequently has stopped recruitment. The consy staff has thus become a dying cadre.

¶26

(b) The proposal was taken up with DOPT to allow to utilize 5% of annual wastage vacancies of consy staff for making compassionate appointment. DOPT has not agreed to the proposal for the reason that compassionate appointments cannot be allowed in the dying cadre.

¶27

However, your case of compassionate appointment in Gp ‘C’ post (other than conservancy staff) is being fwd to our higher HQ shortly.”

¶28

Thereafter, by letter dated 14.11.2017, the application of the petitioner was again forwarded to the competent authority for considering his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The application of the petitioner was again forwarded to the Head Quarter, 41 Sub Area, on 18.11.2017. Ultimately, by letter dated 28.03.2019, issued by the Deputy Director GS/SD-7 (Adm Civ) on behalf of the Director General Staff Duties, (Annexure-VIII), the candidature of the petitioner was rejected due to overage as per SRO-70, however, with liberty to his mother or other dependant family members to apply for appointment on compassionate ground in future. The other ground on which the candidature of the petitioner was rejected was that he had secured 74 marks and was placed at sl. no. 54 in the merit list for which he was not found eligible due to low relative marks of merit.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the letter dated 28.03.2019, issued by the Deputy Director, GS/SD-7 (Adm Civ) on behalf of the Director General Staff Duties (Annexure-IX) that the Board of Officers had recommended 6(six) applicants for appointment on compassionate ground who

¶30

Page No.# 4/6

¶31

had secured 88, 79, 78, 77, 76 and 73 marks respectively. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner had secured 74 marks, the rejection of his candidature was not sustainable. By referring to the Scheme for compassionate appointment, 1988 of the Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Govt. of India as well as the OM bearing F.No.14014/02/2012-Esst.(D) dated 16.01.2013, issued by the said authority, it is submitted that both under the scheme as well as under the office memorandum dated 16.01.2013, Clause 6(B) deals with relaxations, and as per Note-I of clause (a) of sub-clause B of Clause 6, it is provided that the age of eligibility shall be determined with reference to the date of application and not the date of appointment.

¶32

Accordingly, it is submitted that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, it has been mentioned that the date of birth of the petitioner was 30.01.1988 and therefore, in the year 2017, when the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground, the age of the petitioner was 29 years, which was permissible as the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category. Moreover, it is submitted that the age limit for applying on compassionate ground was 25-28 years for general candidates and therefore, as the petitioner being a member of Scheduled Caste reserved category candidate, his age was liable to be relaxed by 5 years and therefore, on both grounds i.e. the date of application and the date of consideration, the age of the petitioner was within the zone of consideration of 29 and 30 years respectively. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order, vide letter dated 28.03.2019, was liable to be set aside and the petitioner was entitled to have his case reconsidered for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶33

Page No.# 5/6

¶34

Although, the learned CGC has vehemently objected to the prayers made in the writ petition, but, upon a query of the Court, the learned CGC has not been able to deny the existence of Scheme for compassionate appointment, 1988 as well as the OM dated 16.01.2013, as referred to above. He has also not been able to deny that the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste category and his age was liable to be relaxed by 5(five) years.

¶35

Accordingly, as the Scheme for compassionate appointment, 1988 as well as the OM Dated 16.01.2013 provided under Note I of clause (a) of the subclause B of Clause 6 of both the said scheme and the OM that the age of eligibility shall be determined with reference to the date of application and not the date of appointment. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has a right to have his candidature reconsidered in light of the said Note I of clause (a) of the sub-clause B of Clause 6 of the said Scheme for compassionate appointment, 1988 and the OM dated 16.01.2013.

¶36

In view of the findings recorded above, the Court is inclined to set aside the letter bearing no. C/92842/BOO-2018/GS/SD-7(Adm Civ) dated 28.03.2019, issued on behalf of the Director General Staff Duties by the Deputy Director , GS/SD-7 (Adm Civ), being not sustainable on facts.

¶37

Resultantly, the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is restored back to file. Accordingly, the respondent no.2 i.e. the Director General Staff Duties shall once again take up and consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, and the

¶38

Page No.# 6/6

¶39

said authority is also directed to consider the age of the petitioner as on the date of his application in terms of Note I of clause (a) of the sub-clause B of Clause 6 of the said Scheme for compassionate appointment, 1988 read with office memorandum F.No.14014/02/2012-Estt.(D) dated 16.01.2013 as well as office memorandum No.14014/6/94-Esst(D) dated 09.10.1998. The said application shall not be rejected on the ground that it has been considered and rejected earlier.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court to the order dated 31.05.2019, passed in this writ petition, wherein it was provided that one post in the Grade-IV may be kept unfilled till the next date. Therefore, it is provided that if one post in Grade-IV has been kept unfilled, the respondent no.2 shall consider the candidature of the petitioner within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. It is further provided that in the event, if all the Grade-IV posts were already filled up prior to the passing of the order dated 31.05.2019, in that event, the candidature of the petitioner shall be considered in the immediate next exercise for filling up the post of appointment on compassionate ground.

¶41

The petitioner shall serve a certified copy of the order to the respondent no.2 to bring the order to the notice of the said authority for compliance.

¶42

This writ petitioner stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

Sandip Bhor v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Bhor v. the Union of India 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

Lalit Sarmah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ex Rt/Gd Keshab Dhakal Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Naba Kumar Deka Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Pabitra Ch. Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Kishori Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ganga Sagar Ram Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.