Allowed

Rintu Kakati v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC21 Sept 2022WP(C)/4486/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his father's compassionate appointment due to delayed application. The High Court held the one-year limitation was directory, not mandatory, considering the family tragedy causing delay, set aside the rejection, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Rejection set aside; matter remanded to State Level Committee for fresh decision considering existence of vacancy and circumstances of delay.

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

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010130902022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4486/2022

¶5

RINTU KAKATI

¶6

S/O- LATE LOHIT CHANDRA KAKATI, R/O- VILL.- GERIMARI (BIDYANAGAR), P.O. MANGALDAI, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN- 784125.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶10

2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIARMAN THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR

¶12

HEALTH SERVICE ASSAM HEALTH COMPLEX HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-36.

¶13

4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DARRANG ASSAM P.O. MANGALDAI

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125. 5:THE JOINT DIRECTOR

¶16

HEALTH SERVICE DARRANG P.O. MANGALDAI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ISLAM

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

21.09.2022

¶22

Heard Mr. M Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. DP Borah, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 3 and 5 being the authorities in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the government of Assam and Ms. A Talukdar, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondents No. 2 and 4 respectively being the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam and the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang.

¶23

The father of the petitioner Lohit Chandra Kakoti, who was working as SW(Malaria) in the establishment of Joint Director of Health Services, Darrang, died in harness on 08.10.2014 after rendering service of almost 20 years 03 months. On his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 20.09.2016. On the said application and upon evaluation of the existence of a vacancy, the petitioner was recommended for a Grade-III post.

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

When the recommendation of the DLC was placed before the SLC in its meeting of 20.02.2020, it stood rejected by providing the reason of late submission of application.

¶26

When the death took place on 08.10.2014 and the application was filed on 20.09.2016, factually it would be correct to arrive at a conclusion that the application was submitted at a belated stage. But, at the same time, the records produced before the Court reveals that the father of the petitioner died on 08.10.2014 in a road accident in which his mother Dipali Kakoti as well as his brother Rubul Kakoti also died. As three members of the family died in the same accident, the petitioner was in a state of shock for a long period of time and because of the aforesaid mitigating circumstance, there was a delay in submitting the application for compassionate appointment beyond the period of one year. 5. The period of one year prescribed under the law is directory in nature rather than mandatory by putting an embargo that any application filed a day after one year is to be rejected straight away without any further application of mind. When the attending facts and circumstance of the petitioner is taken note where three members of the family died in the road accident, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not in the state of shock after such accident which may have delayed the submission of the application for compassionate appointment. The records reveal that the SLC had not taken note of the aforesaid circumstance while rejecting the recommendation in a technical manner that there was a delay in submission of the application.

¶27

Accordingly, the rejection of the SLC in its meeting of 20.02.2020 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the SLC for taking a fresh decision by taking note of the circumstance because of which there may have been a delay

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

of beyond one year in submitting the application and also as it is a case of compassionate appointment to invoke compassion while considering the matter. Accordingly, the matter be now placed before the next available SLC for its fresh consideration. The SLC to pass the order by taking note of the existence of the vacancy evaluated by the DLC and not to take a mechanical decision that in the meantime all such vacancies may have exhausted.

¶30

The writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Rintu Kakati v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rintu Kakati 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manuwara Begum Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Abdur Rouf Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Pankaj Kr. Nath Vs Papari Devi

Faruk Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mridul Neog Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gita Mahanta Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.