Allowed

Pankaj Phukan v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 May 2023WP(C)/2648/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compassionate appointment for his father who died as Headmaster. DLC rejected application citing a minimum 3 years service requirement. Court disposed of writ petition allowing it and remitted matter for reconsideration in light of a co-ordinate bench judgment setting aside the service requirement clause.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; DLC directed to reconsider application within 30 days.

Pankaj Phukan Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010065772023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2648/2023

¶5

PANKAJ PHUKAN S/O- LATE DAMBARU PHUKAN, R/O VILLAGE SAFRAI MOHAN GAON, P.O- MON MOHAN, P.S- SONARI, DIST- CHARAIDEO, ASSAM, PIN-785689

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY CUM CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶8

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

¶9

ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE DIST- SIVSAGAR ASSAM

¶10

Page No.# 2/4

¶11

PIN-785640

¶12

5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE DIST- CHARAIDEO ASSAM PIN-785690 6:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER

¶13

DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN-785640 7:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS CHARAIDEO SONARI PIN-78569

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J HATIMURIA

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

17-05-2023

¶19

Heard Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. D.D. Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the Respondents no. 1, 4 & 5 and Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department appearing for the respondents no.2, 3, 6 & 7.

¶20

The petitioner’s father, namely, Dambaru Phukan died on 14.02.2017 while he

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

was serving as the Headmaster of Sidhartha L.P. School. The petitioner thereafter filed an application seeking appointment under die-in-harness scheme. The case of the petitioner was rejected by the District Level Committee (DLC), Sivasagar District, in its meeting held on 30.03.2019 on the ground that his late father had less than 3 (three) years of service and as per Clause-I of the OM dated 01.06.2015, a person would be eligible to make an application for compassionate appointment provided the deceased government servant had a balance of minimum 3(three) years of service at the time of death and the petitioner’s mother had less than 3 years of service.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the judgment and order dated 30.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No.1646/2021 and other connected writ petitions had already interfered with this Clause-I of the said OM dated 01.06.2015. The Clause-I was set aside by the said judgment.

¶24

Accordingly, this Court is of the view that this matter will require reconsideration before the competent authorities in view of the judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No.1646/2021, whereby the Clause-I of the O.M. Dated 01.06.2015 was interfered with and set aside.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of interfering with the minutes of the DLC meeting held on 30.03.2019 in so far as the writ petitioner is concerned.

¶26

The DLC will convene a meeting within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and passed appropriate orders in terms of the provisions of law read with the judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No.1646/2021 and other bunch of writ petitions.

¶27

Writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms of the above

Page No.# 4/4

directions.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant

Pankaj Phukan v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Phukan 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jahangir Ali Vs the State of Assam

Surhab Ali @ Sohrab Ali and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

MD Arfan Ali Vs the State of Assam

Khagendra Padun Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Surajmoni Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Saram Das Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.