Partly allowed

Ratul Das v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Mar 2022WP(C)/992/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court set aside rejection orders by State and District Level Committees relating to the petitioner's compassionate appointment. Due to the District Level Committee's mistake in recommending a post requiring graduation, the court directed fresh consideration for a Grade-IV post.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the relevant meeting minutes of the District and State Level Committees to enable fresh consideration of the case against a Grade-IV post.

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

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010026012022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/992/2022

¶5

RATUL DAS S/O LATE PRAMOD KUMAR DAS R/O SENCHOWA P.S. NAGAON SADAR DIST.NAGAON, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶8

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

¶9

2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶10

DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM

¶11

3:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT

¶12

NAGAON REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON ASSAM

¶13

4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003 ASSAM

¶16

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶17

KALIABOR AND INDT KALLONG DIVISION (IRRIGATION) NAGAON ASSA

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS RUKMINI BARUA

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶21

ORDER

¶22

04.03.2022

¶23

Heard Ms. P. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. D. S. Neog, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 4 & 5 and Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 3.

¶24

2 . The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner’s father died-in-harness on 21.04.2015 while working as a Section Assistant in the office of the respondent no.5. The petitioner, who was HSLC pass, submitted an application for compassionate appointment and the District Level Committee (DLC) recommended the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment to the post of Section Assistant, which is a Grade-III post and which required the candidate to have a graduation decree.

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

3 . The State Level Committee (SLC) rejected the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner did not have the qualification required for consideration and appointment to a Grade-III post.

¶27

4 . Ms. P. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a HSLC pass and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in any post. However, the DLC had mistakenly recommended the petitioner for a Grade-III post for which the petitioner was not qualified. She submits that there is no mistake in the SLC rejecting the petitioner’s application as the petitioner was not qualified to be considered and appointed against a Grade-III post. The petitioner’s counsel prays that the application for compassionate appointment should be sent back to the DLC concerned for a fresh consideration against a vacant Grade-IV post.

¶28

5 . The learned counsels for the respondents fairly submit that the petitioner could not have been considered for a Grade-III post by the DLC and in view of the mistake committed by the DLC, the petitioner’s application had been rejected by the SLC. They submit that the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment can be sent back to the DLC for a fresh consideration for compassionate appointment against a Grade-IV post.

¶29

6 . I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings. There is nothing to show that the petitioner had applied for a

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

Grade-III post. The petitioner not being a graduate, the DLC had wrongly recommended the petitioner for a Grade-III post and in view of the mistake committed by the DLC, the SLC had no other option but to reject the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment. However, as can be seen from the above submissions made by the counsels for the parties and on perusal of the pleadings, the fault lies with the DLC in recommending the petitioner against a post for which he was not qualified to be considered. In view of the reasons stated above, the petitioner will have to be considered for compassionate appointment again only against a Grade-IV post. Accordingly, the DLC meeting minutes dated 13.11.2017 and the SLC meeting minutes dated 15.09.2021, in so far as it relates to the petitioner are set aside. The petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment be again placed before the DLC, Kaliabor & Kallong Division, Nagaon District to enable the DLC to re-consider the petitioner’s case for appointment against a Grade-III post in the next DLC meeting.

¶32

7 . The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Ratul Das v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratul Das 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

Idrish Ali Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Adhir Chandra Roy and 15 Ors. Vs the Commissioner and Secretary and 4 Ors.

Himani Basumatary Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Smti. Durgeswari Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Smt. Ambika Das Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Radha Ranjan Bowri Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.