Disposed

Mohan Kumar v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Sept 2022WP(C)/4135/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, son of deceased's government employee, sought compassionate appointment. Court found local vacancies exhausted but directed response ignoring Clause 15 of 2015 OM. Court remitted for fresh consideration under Clause 15 allowing cross-department transfers.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider petitioner's case under Clause 15 of O.M. dated 01.06.2015 within 3 months.

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

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010123742021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4135/2021

¶5

MOHAN KUMAR

¶6

S/O LATE SURESH KUMAR,

¶7

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARJALAH, PO AND PS TANGLA, DIST UDALGURI, ASSAM, 781521

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006

¶11

2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE ON COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT(SLC) REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006

¶12

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER OF IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT

¶13

ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 781003

¶14

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶15

DARRANG MANGALDAI ASSAM 784125

¶16

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶17

MANGALDAI DIVISION (IRRIGATION) MANGALDAI

¶18

Page No.# 2/4

¶19

78412

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHETRI

¶21

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶22

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 07-09-2022

¶25

Heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department for the respondent nos. 1, 3 &; and Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 & 4.

¶26

The case projected by the petitioner, briefly stated, is that the petitioner’s father, Late Suresh Kumar who was serving as a Grade-IV employee [Helper] in the establishment of the respondent no. 5, died in harness on 20.02.2017. Prior to his death, the service of the petitioner’s father was regularized by an order dated 06.10.2005. The petitioner’s father expired leaving behind his wife i.e. the petitioner’s mother and a son i.e. the petitioner. The petitioner stated to have submitted an application before the respondent no. 5 on 07.09.2017 seeking appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the policy framed by the State Government by an Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. When no response was received as regards the fate of his application seeking appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner had to prefer a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3043/2018. The writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3043/2018 was disposed of by an order dated 20.11.2018 with a direction to the respondent

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by putting up the case before the appropriate authorities for consideration of his case on the grounds of suitability and existence of vacancy. The petitioner has come to learn from a reply received from the respondent no. 5 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 that the proposal was not sent to the District Level Committee [DLC] on the ground of nonexistence of vacancy.

¶29

In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent no. 5, it has been averred that the sanctioned strength of Grade-III is 78 nos. and 5% of it would be about 4 nos. of vacancies, which can be made available for appointment under compassionate ground. On the other hand, the sanctioned strength of Grade-IV is 70 nos. and the 5% of the sanctioned strength would be about 4 nos. of vacancies, which can be made available for appointment under compassionate ground. It is further averred that no vacancy under such 5% quota is available either in Grade-III or in Grade-IV in the establishment to make available for appointment on compassionate ground and in such situation, the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground could not be considered.

¶30

The matter of appointment on compassionate ground is to be considered in terms of the scheme framed by the Government of Assam as contained in an Office Memorandum bearing no. ABP.50/2006/Pt./182 dated 01.06.2015 of the Personnel [B] Department, Government of Assam. Clause 14 has inter alia provided that compassionate appointment can be made up to a maximum of 5% of the total strength of a cadre/man in position in the cadre at the time of recruitment in any Grade-III, not above the level of Junior Administrative Assistant [direct recruitment], or Grade-IV [direct recruitment] posts. Clause 15

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 reads as under :

¶33

“If sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to accommodate the persons in the waiting list for compassionate appointment, it is open to the Administrative Department/Office to take up the matter with other Departments/Offices of the Government to provide at an early appointment on compassionate grounds to those in the waiting list.”

¶34

It does not transpires from the counter-affidavit of the respondent no. 5 that the case of the petitioner has also been considered in terms of the provisions contained in Clause 15 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. This Court is of the considered view, as already observed in the order dated 20.11.2018, that there should also be a consideration of the case of the petitioner in terms of Clause 15 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015.

¶35

In such view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the provision contained in Clause 15 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. The same shall be done in an expeditious manner, preferably within a period of 3 [three] months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner at the office of the respondent no. 5. The outcome of such consideration shall also be communicated to the petitioner thereafter forthwith at the address/e-mail address furnished by the petitioner.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Mohan Kumar v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pranjal Das Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Ananta Ram Kalita and 2 Ors. Vs the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and 3 Ors.

The State Bank of India and 5 Ors. Vs Satya Nath Das.

Mrinmoy Lekharu Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mrs. Ashima Devi Kalita and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

JC-410680M Nb/Sub Udayappan N Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.