Remanded

Joysree Kuli v. the State Level Committee and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC28 Apr 2022WP(C)/3953/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's compassionate appointment claim by the State Level Committee. The court held that the Committee failed to follow the mandatory procedure of creating a waiting list when departmental vacancies were unavailable and directed reconsideration of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State Level Committee and department to reconsider the petitioner's case under clause 15 of the office memorandum dated 01.06.2015 in the next meeting and pass necessary orders.

Joysree Kuli Vs the State Level Committee… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010088472020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3953/2020

¶5

JOYSREE KULI

¶6

D/O LATE ASWINI KUMAR KULI, R/O SONAIGHULI, PO SAWKCHI, PS DISPUR, KAMRUP ASSAN, 781041

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6

¶9

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PWD DEPARTMENT DISPUR

¶11

GUWAHATI 6

¶12

3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROADS DIVISION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 3

¶13

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD, PWD ROAD DIVISION, RURAL GUWAHATI

¶14

5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE KAMRUP M ASSA

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 28.4.2022

¶21

Heard Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State counsel representing respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and Mr. P Nayak, learned standing counsel for the PWD.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s father was working as Head Assistant in the office of the respondent No. 3 and he died in harness on 20.01.2016. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground against any grade-III post. The respondent authority placed the name of the petitioner before the District Level Committee, Kamrup(M) Guwahati for consideration of her case. The District Level Committee ,Kamrup (M) Guwahati recommended the name of the petitioner for grade III post on compassionate ground.

¶23

Thereafter, the recommendation of the District Level Committee, Kamrup(M),Guwahati in respect of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was placed before the State Level Committee and the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 31.12.2018 rejected the claim of the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that 5% quota earmarked for compassionate appointment has already been filled up. Thereafter again in the State Level Committee meeting held on 23.12.2019 the name of the petitioner was not considered for compassionate appointment.

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if 5% quota is not available in the department as per the office memorandum being No. ABP.50/2006/Pt/182 dated 01.06.2015 the case of the petitioner needs to be placed in a waiting list and needs to be considered for vacancies in other departments/ offices. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the SLC has not applied their mind and mechanically rejected the case of the petitioner and not followed the procedure under clause 15 of the said memorandum dated 01.06.2015.

¶26

On perusal of the material available on record as well as clause 15 of the memorandum dated 01.06.2015 (supra), this court of the view that as per mandate of clause 15, even if sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to accommodate a person, the consideration of the claim of the said person need to be put in a waiting list and it is for the administrative department/ office to take up the matter with other departments/ offices of the Government to provide at any early appointment on compassionate ground to those in the waiting list.

¶27

That being the position and the same being not followed by the SLC, this court is compelled to direct the State Level Committee and the department to reconsider the case of the petitioner under clause 15 of the O.M. dated 01.06.2015 (supra) in its next meeting and pass necessary order.

¶28

This disposes the writ petition

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Joysree Kuli v. the State Level Committee and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joysree Kuli v. the State Level Committee 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

Sultana Begum Mazumder Vs Syedain Abbasi, IAS and 2 Ors.

Dr. Tafikuddin Ahmed and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Leukule Jeme @ Heleukule Jeme Vs the State of Assam and 13 Ors.

Kamini Kachari Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

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

Phulendra Narayan Konwar and 2 Ors. Vs the Assam State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and 5 Ors.