Dismissed

Monuj Saikia v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Sept 2022WP(C)/5685/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a compassionate appointment application. The petitioner's father had less than three years of service at death. The Court held the rejection was valid under established norms and prior court orders, refusing to apply a provision mandating inter-departmental vacancy transfer.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010169612022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5685/2022

¶5

MONUJ SAIKIA S/O- LATE JADAV SAIKIA, R/O- PODUMONI, SANKOLA, P.O.- RAHDHOLA, P.S.- GOLAGHAT, DIST.- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785622.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM CUM CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶8

2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT (PWRD) DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶9

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT (PWRD) CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 781003.

¶10

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶11

GOLAGHAT CUM CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE PERTAINING TO COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT GOLAGHAT PIN- 785621.

¶12

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

GOLAGHAT RURAL ROAD DIVISION GOLAGHAT PIN- 785621

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N K KALITA

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 02-09-2022

¶20

Heard Mr. NK Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that that the impugned State Level Committee (SLC) meeting minutes dated 23.12.2019, by which the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that his father had less than 3 (three) years of service remaining at the time of death, should be set aside.

¶21

The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner’s father died-in-harness on 11.05.2007. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 20.09.2007. The District Level Committee (DLC), vide its meeting minutes dated 25.03.2008, recommended the petitioner for appointment to the post of Chowkidar. The SLC, vide meeting minutes dated 13.02.2014, rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that there were no vacancy as per the records. The authorities thereafter again placed the case of the petitioner before the SLC meeting held on 19.06.2018. However, the petitioner’s application was rejected by the SLC without assigning any reason. Subsequently, vide speaking order dated 22.11.2018, there was a communication made that the SLC, in its meeting held on 19.06.2018 had rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the 5% quota reserved for appointment on compassionate ground

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

had been filled up.

¶24

The petitioner approached this Court by way of WP(C) No. 6010/2018. This Court disposed of WP(C) No. 6010/2018, vide order dated 13.03.2019, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of paragraph 15 of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 01.06.2015, which states as follows:-

¶25

“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.”

¶26

The SLC thereafter rejected the petitioner’s application, on the ground of the petitioner’s father had less than 3 (three) years of service at the time of his death.

¶27

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner’s application should have been considered in terms of paragraph 15 of the OM dated 01.06.2015 and as such, could not have been rejected on any other ground.

¶28

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no infirmity with the rejection of the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment, in view of the observations made by this Court in its order dated 13.03.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 6010/2018, which states that before the authority rejects the claim of the claimant, the same should be done by assigning reasons thereof. Further, if the rejection is because of lack of vacancy, the authorities are bound to consider the availability of vacancy in other Departments in terms of paragraph 15 of the OM dated 01.06.2015.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶30

Page No.# 4/5

¶31

The order dated 13.03.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 6010/2018 makes it clear that reason has to be assigned, before the authorities reject the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. Further, if the rejection is because of lack of vacancy in the concerned department, the authorities were duty bound to consider the availability of vacancy in other Departments in terms of paragraph 15 of the OM dated 01.06.2015.

¶32

The SLC meeting minutes dated 23.12.2019 clearly states that the petitioner’s application has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner’s father had less than 3 (three) years of service remaining at the time of his death.

¶33

Para 1 of the OM dated 01.06.2015 provides that only 1 (one) dependent family member of a Government servant can be appointed on compassionate ground, provided that the Government servant has a minimum of 3 (three) years of service at the time of his death.

¶34

As this Court in its order dated 13.03.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 6010/2018 has provided that para 15 of the OM dated 10.06.2015 should be applied in the petitioner’s case, the implication of the said direction is that the entire OM dated 01.06.2015 could be applied while considering the petitioner’s case. Further, in the case of NC Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka , reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 , the Apex Court in para 20 has held that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment.

¶35

In view of the decision of the 3 (three) judges Bench of the Apex Court in NC Santhosh (supra) and the order dated 13.03.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 6010/2018, this Court does not find any infirmity with the decision of the

¶36

Page No.# 5/5

¶37

respondent authorities in applying paragraph 1 of the OM dated 01.06.2015 for rejecting the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. Further, the said provision has not been put to challenge by the petitioner.

¶38

Consequently, in view of the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Monuj Saikia v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Monuj Saikia v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipak Kumar Baruah and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Ashish Kumar Dey Vs the Assam State Housing Board and 2 Ors.

Ratneswar Deka Vs the Assam State Housing Board and 2 Ors.

Mahesh Ch. Nath Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Sokuntala Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Chinmay Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.