Remanded

Marsel Narah v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC29 Apr 2022WP(C)/6771/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compassionate appointment for his father who died in harness. State Level Committee rejected the case as spent due to administrative delay. Court held rejection improper, noted Section 46 of Assam Public Service Rules regarding waiting lists, and directed SLC to reconsider.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State Level Committee to reconsider the petitioner's case under clause 15 of the office memorandum dated 01.06.2015 in its next meeting.

Marsel Narah Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010211072021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/6771/2021

¶5

MARSEL NARAH

¶6

S/O. LT. PITAMBAR CHAYENGIA, VILL. KADAM MISSING GAON, P.O. KADAM, P.S. BOGINADI, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, PIN-787032, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM.

¶9

2:THE CHIEF SECRETARY CUM CHAIRMAN TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶10

STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 ASSAM.

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

¶12

ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHTI PIN-781006 ASSAM.

¶13

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶14

LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR PIN-787001 ASSAM.

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

5:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

¶17

LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR PIN-787001 ASSAM.

¶18

6:THE CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER

¶19

LAKHIMPUR DIST. NORTH LAKHIMPUR PIN-787001 ASSAM.

¶20

7:THE SUPERINTENDENT LAKHIMPUR CIVIL HOSPITAL DIST. LAKHIMPUR PIN-787001 ASSAM

¶21

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GOHAIN

¶22

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶23

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Date : 29.4.2022

¶26

Heard Mr. A. Gohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State counsel representing respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and Mr. B. Gogoi, and learned standing counsel for the Health Department.

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s father was working as Surveillance Inspector under the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Lakhimpur and he died in harness on 27.10.2010.

¶28

The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground before

¶29

Page No.# 3/4

¶30

the office of the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Lakhimpur.

¶31

The District Level Committee, Lakhimpur in its meeting held on 19.11.2011 recommended the name of the petitioner against the Gr.IV post on compassionate ground. However, the District Level Committee placed the case of the petitioner before the State Level Committee only on 27.11.2015 i.e. after elapse of more than four years from the date of filing his application and accordingly SLC rejected the petitioner’s case vide its meeting dated 27.11.2015 on the ground that the petitioner’s application had spent its force.

¶32

It is further observed in the SLC meeting that as no vacancy is available, the case of the petitioner will not be considered any further.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if 5% quota is not available in the department as per the office memorandum being No. ABP.50/2006/Pt/182 dated 01.06.2015 the case of the petitioner needs to be placed in a waiting list and needs to be considered against vacancies in other departments/ offices. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the SLC has not applied their mind and mechanically rejected the case of the petitioner and not followed the procedure under clause 15 of the said memorandum dated 01.06.2015.

¶34

I have given anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶35

Father of the petitioner expired on 27.10.2010, his name was recommended by DLC on 19.11.2011, within a year. Therefore, the delay on the part of DLC forwarding the recommendation on 27.11.2015 cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Accordingly he cannot be deprived of his right of

¶36

Page No.# 4/4

¶37

consideration. Therefore, the decision of SLC in holding that the case of the petitioner lost its force, is interfered with.

¶38

On perusal of the material available on record as well as clause 15 of the memorandum dated 01.06.2015 (supra), this court is of the view that as per mandate of clause 15, even if sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to accommodate a person, the consideration of the claim of the said person need to be put in a waiting list and it is for the administrative department/ office to take up the matter with other departments/ offices of the Government to provide at any early appointment on compassionate ground to those in the waiting list.

¶39

That being the position and the same being not followed by the SLC, this court is compelled to direct the State Level Committee to reconsider the case of the petitioner under clause 15 of the O.M. dated 01.06.2015 (supra) in its next meeting and pass necessary order.

¶40

This disposes of the writ petition.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Marsel Narah v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marsel Narah v. the State of Assam and 6 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

Joysree Kuli Vs the State Level Committee and 4 Ors.

Kamini Kachari Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sultana Begum Mazumder Vs Syedain Abbasi, IAS and 2 Ors.

Madhab Ch. Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Phulendra Narayan Konwar and 2 Ors. Vs the Assam State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Prabin Talukdar Vs Rajesh Kempray