Partly allowed

Himani Basumatary v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Mar 2022WP(C)/466/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compassionate appointment in Grade-III; court held she was eligible only for Grade-IV based on qualifications at application time and set aside prior orders remanding consideration for Grade-IV.

What did the court decide?

DLC meeting minutes recommending Grade-III and SLC rejection set aside; application remanded for Grade-IV consideration.

Himani Basumatary Vs the State of Assam and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010006332022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/466/2022

¶5

HIMANI BASUMATARY

¶6

D/O LATE MANESWAR BASUMATARY

¶7

RESIDENT OF BETNA, PO BETNA, PS GORESWAR, DIST BAKSA, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 06

¶11

3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BTC KOKRAJHAR ASSAM

¶12

4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

¶13

IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03

¶14

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SUKLA DIVISION GORESWAR BAKSA ASSA

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H GUPTA

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 02.03.2022

¶21

Heard Mr. N. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the petitioner’s father died in harness on 28.03.2016, while working in the Office of the respondent no. 5.

¶22

The petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 30.09.2016. The District Level Committee, Kokrajhar recommended the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment to the post of Junior Assistant, a Grade –III post, vide meeting minutes dated 16.03.2017. However, the (State Level Committee) SLC rejected the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment vide meeting minutes dated 15.09.2021, on the ground that the petitioner did not posses the educational qualification required for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant.

¶23

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner, at the time of filing her application for compassionate appointment, was having the educational qualification of higher secondary pass and she obtained her graduate degree only in the year 2020. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as the petitioner obtained her graduation degree in 2020, the SLC in its meeting held in the year 2021, should have taken into account the petitioner’s graduate qualification.

¶24

Mr. J. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 4 submit that the SLC has rightly rejected the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment, as the petitioner did not have the educational qualification required for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant, at

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

the time the petitioner filed her application for compassionate appointment and at the time of consideration by the DLC.

¶27

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶28

The pleadings and the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties show that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification of being a graduate, for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant, which is a Grade-III, post at the time the petitioner submitting her application for compassionate appointment and at the time the DLC and considered her application. There is nothing to show that the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment against a Grade-III post. In any event, the petitioner could not have applied for a Grade-III post, as she did not posses the required qualification at the time of submission of her application and consideration by the DLC.

¶29

The above being said, the DLC could not have recommended the petitioner for compassionate appointment against the post of Junior Assistant, as the petitioner did not have the qualification to be appointed against the post. The petitioner securing her graduate degree after the DLC had recommended the petitioner, does not change the character of the application made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The petitioner could have been considered for compassionate appointment to a Grade-IV post only, as per the educational qualification that she possessed at the time of filing the application for compassionate appointment and at the time she was considered by the DLC.

¶30

Due the reasons stated above, the petitioner would have to be considered for compassionate appointment only against a Grade-IV post. Accordingly, the DLC meeting minutes dated 16.03.2017, by which the petitioner has been recommended for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant and the SLC meeting minutes dated 15.09.2021, which rejected the petitioner’s application, are both set aside.

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

The petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment be again placed before the DLC, Kokrajhar, to enable the DLC to consider her against a Grade-IV post in the next DLC meeting.

¶33

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Himani Basumatary v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himani Basumatary 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

Md. Haidar Ali @ Haidar Ali (UBC/199) and 6 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Billal Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Jubin Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Debojit Dutta Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Pradip Ch. Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Md. Ambabu Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.