Allowed

Raktim Rabi Boruah v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Mar 2023WP(C)/2456/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compassionate appointment for his father who died in harness. DLC rejected the application because the petitioner was a minor when applying but was major when considered. Court held age matters on the date of consideration and set aside the rejection.

What did the court decide?

Impugned resolution dated 28-12-2021 set aside. Matter remanded to DLC to consider claim afresh as on the date of consideration.

Raktim Rabi Boruah Vs the State of Assam and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010052352022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2456/2022

¶5

RAKTIM RABI BORUAH

¶6

S/O LATE LAMBIT BORUAH, R/O VILL-BORAJAN CHAPORI, P.O. AND P.S.GHILAMORA, DIST-LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-787053

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS), DISPUR, GUWAHATI781006

¶10

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003

¶11

3:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER (PLANNING) P.W.D. (ROADS) ASSAM GUWAHATI-781003

¶12

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) ASSAM LAKHIMPUR STATE ROAD DIVISION GHILAMORA LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787053

¶13

5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶14

AND CHAIRPERSON OF DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-78700

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U SAIKIA

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD ROAD

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 02-03-2023

¶22

Heard Mr. U. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned standing counsel, PWD, Assam appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. D. Bora, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent No. 5.

¶23

It appears from the materials on record that the father of the petitioner, viz. late Lambit Boruah had died-in-harness on 09-10-2009 while serving as a Sub-Engineer in the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Lakhimpur. After the death of his father, the petitioner had submitted an application on 31-01-2011 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. At the time of filing of the said application, the age of the petitioner was around 17 years. The application submitted by the petitioner, however, came up for consideration in the meeting of the DLC, Lakhimpur held on 28-12-2021 and the same was rejected by holding that the petitioner was under-aged.

¶24

Mr. Saikia submits that although there was a vacancy available for appointment of candidates on compassionate ground, yet, the case of the petitioner was erroneously

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

rejected by the authorities. On a query made by the Court, the learned departmental counsel have submitted that although on 28-12-2021 the age of the petitioner was around 28 years, yet, since he was a minor on the date of submission of the application, i.e. on 31-01-2011. It was on such count, the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected.

¶27

There is no provision in the rules/ guidelines/ office memorandums, which requires the DLC to take into account the age of the applicant on the date of filing the same. What, therefore, would naturally follow is that the age of the candidate would be relevant on the date on which the application is taken up for consideration, as otherwise it would negate the very purpose for which the scheme of die-in-harness had been introduced by the Government.

¶28

Initially, when the application submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the DLC, he had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 4598/2014, which was disposed of by the order dated 11-09-2014, whereby the learned Single Judge had directed that the petitioner’s case be considered for appointment on compassionate ground by strictly following the guidelines formulated in terms of the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 GLT 674 and Foziron Nessa Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in (2010) 4 GLT 340 . Accordingly the case of the petitioner was considered by the DLC, Lakhimpur on 28-12-2021 and the same was rejected by holding that the petitioner was under-aged.

¶29

In the present case, since the petitioner was admittedly eligible in terms of age, for

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

being appointed in a Govt. job on 28-12-2021, the DLC, in the opinion of this Court, had committed a glaring error in rejecting his application merely on the ground that he was under-aged. It is apparent on the face of the record that after filing of the application on 31-01-2011, there was a delay of nearly 10 years before which the same was considered by the DLC. Under the circumstances, the DLC could not have denied the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner only on the ground of being under-aged. Situated thus, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned resolution dated 28-12-2021 is illegal and the same is accordingly set aside.

¶32

The matter is remanded back to the DLC, Lakhimpur to consider his application afresh. It is made clear that the DLC would consider the claim of the petitioner with reference to the circumstances existing as on 28-12-2021 and if it is found that he was otherwise qualified for being appointed against Gr-III or Gr-IV post, on the date of consideration of his application, i.e. on 28-12-2021, necessary recommendation will be made in favour of the petitioner. Such recommendation be also considered by the SLC in the light of the observation made hereinabove.

¶33

The matter be placed before the next meeting of the DLC, Lakhimpur.

¶34

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Raktim Rabi Boruah v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raktim Rabi Boruah 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

Mustt Toslima Khatun@Taslima Khatun Vs Sitara Jabin Ansari

Bipul Ch Das and 1139 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 16 Ors.

Aynal Hoque Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Md. Hussain Tagala and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Kalicharan Mandal and 206 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

The State of Assam and Anr. Vs Ajit Sonowal and 3 Ors.