Allowed

Jakaria Imran Choudhury v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 May 2022WP(C)/479/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed the writ petition. Relying on N.C. Santhosh, the Court held that the age limit for compassionate appointment must be evaluated as on the date the application was considered, not the date of submission. The rejection was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Rejection interfered; matter remanded to DLC for fresh consideration without insisting on age at time of submission.

Jakaria Imran Choudhury Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010013652022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/479/2022

¶5

JAKARIA IMRAN CHOUDHURY

¶6

S/O LATE ALU UDDIN CHOUDHURY. VILLAGE RONGPUR, PO RONGPUR NORTH, PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI, ASSAM 788151

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (ELEMENTARY) DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

¶10

ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19

¶11

3:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI 06

¶13

4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITEE (DLC) HAILAKANDI FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788151

¶14

5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

HAILAKANDI ASSAM 78815

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S B LASKAR

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

13.05.2022

¶22

Heard Mr. SB Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. PK Borah, learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 and 5 being the authorities under the Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam and Mr. SR Baruah, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4 respectively being the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi.

¶23

The father of the petitioner Ala Uddin Choudhury, who was working as a Hindi Teacher in Chebra ME School in the Hailakandi district, died in harness on 11.08.2004. On his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 12.12.2004. As per the order dated 11.10.2021 of the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi, the application of the petitioner was placed before the DLC of Hailakandi district. The application of the petitioner was rejected by the DLC of Hailakandi district in its meeting of 05.10.2021 on the ground that on the date of submission of the application, the petitioner was 17 years 0 month and 12 days and, therefore, in terms of the OM dated

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

01.06.2015 he was not eligible to be appointed on compassionate ground.

¶26

Had the application of the petitioner was considered at the relevant time when the same was submitted, perhaps, the same reason may have been acceptable, but we take note of that the application of the petitioner was considered on 05.10.2021 and definitely on the said date, the petitioner was not a minor.

¶27

The Supreme Court in N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka and Ors . reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 in paragraph 19 had held that the law governing compassionate appointment is that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be made the basis for consideration of the claim for compassionate appointment. Admittedly, the application of the petitioner was considered on 05.10.2021 by the DLC of Hailakandi district and as on the date of consideration, the petitioner was over 18 years of age. In the circumstance, we are of the view that the rejection of the application of the petitioner on 05.10.2021 on the ground that he was 17 years 0 month and 12 days on the date of submission of the application would be contrary to the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court.

¶28

Accordingly, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the DLC of Hailakandi district on 05.10.2021 is interfered with and the matter is remanded back to the DLC of Hailakandi district to be placed before the next available meeting of DLC of Hailakandi district for a fresh consideration of the application of the petitioner on merit and as per law without insisting upon that at the time of submission of the application he was 17 years 0 month and 12 days.

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

6. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Jakaria Imran Choudhury v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jakaria Imran Choudhury 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Sahrab Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Dilip Bhusal Vs Domber Chetri and 5 Ors.

Simsang Lime Products Private Limited Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Nazrul Haque Mazarbhuiyan Vs Smti. Mamata Hojai

Amzad Hussain Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ashim Deka and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.