Remanded

Rupton Daimari v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 May 2024WP(C)/2323/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of compassionate appointment claim. Court held petitioner should be considered for any Grade-IV post; if none available, consider Clause-15 criteria. Matter remanded to DLC for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to the concerned District Level Committee for reconsideration to any Grade-IV post, or alternatively to consider Clause-15 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 if no Grade-IV post

Rupton Daimari Vs the State of Assam and 7… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010085592024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2323/2024

¶5

RUPTON DAIMARI

¶6

S/O- LATE JUNASH DAIMARI, R/O- VILL.- GERSONG, P.O. BANDARGURI, PS. AND DIST. UDALGURI (BTR), ASSAM, PIN- 784509.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY-CUM-CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY-781006.

¶9

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY-781006.

¶10

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PHE) WATER HENGRABARI GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781036. 4:THE JOINT SECRETARY

¶11

BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370.

¶12

5:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BTC CUM CHAIRMAN DLC

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

KOKRAJHAR

¶15

DIST. KOKRAJHAR-783370.

¶16

6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT UDALGURI DISTRICT ASSAM PIN- 784509. 7:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER (PHE)

¶17

CUM DIRECTOR PHED BTC KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR PIN- 783370. 8:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHE) TANGLA DIVISION TANGLA DIST. UDALGURI ASSAM PIN- 784521

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KALITA

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 03.05.2024

¶23

Heard Mr. J. Hatimuria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. J. K. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 6; Ms. M. Kalita, learned standing counsel, PHE Department for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. R. K. Mochahary, learned standing counsel, BTC for the respondent Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8.

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

The father of the petitioner late Junash Daimari while serving as Grade-IV employee (Pump Operator) in the Office of Executive Engineer (PHE) Tangla Division, Tangla, died-in-harness on 17.08.2014. The petitioner thereafter made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The application of the petitioner was forwarded to the Director, PHED, BTC, Kokrajhar by Joint Secretary, BTC Kokrajhar by letter dated 08.06.2015. However, as the petitioner had no intimation with regard to the outcome of his application for appointment on compassionate grounds despite a considerable period of time, he approached this Court by filing WP(C)/1282/2023. While the said writ petition was pending, the learned standing counsel, BTC produced the minutes of the meeting of the DLC held on 20.08.2016 by which the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that no vacant sanctioned post of Pump Operator was available. Accordingly, the petitioner withdrew the said Writ Petition with liberty to file afresh which was accordingly permitted by order dated 06.03.2024.

¶26

In the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the minutes of the DLC dated 20.08.2016 on the ground that if there is no post of Pump Operator available at that period of time, petitioner could have been considered for any Grade-IV post. Further the case of the petitioner is that Clasue-15 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 has not been considered by the concerned DLC when the case of the petitioner was rejected in its meeting held on 20.08.2016.

¶27

Mr. R. K. Mochahary, learned standing counsel, BTC fairly submits that the case may be remanded to the concerned BTC for reconsideration of the case of

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

the petitioner.

¶30

Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of by remanding the matter back to the concerned District Level Committee for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner to any Grade-IV post. In the event if no Grade-IV post is available, the concerned DLC shall take into consideration Clause-15 of the OM dated 1^st June, 2015 issued by the Department of Personnel, Personnel (B), Government of Assam and thereafter pass appropriate order(s). The concerned DLC shall reconsider the case of the petitioner in its next immediate sitting.

¶31

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Rupton Daimari v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupton Daimari v. the State of Assam and 7 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

Dr. Kumarendra Nath Vs Dr Ashok Babu, IAS

Nityananda Giri Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Utpal Goswami Vs Suranjana Senapati and 2 Ors.

Khaled Akhtar Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and 6 Ors.

Dulaluddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Dipali Das Vs the Food Corporation of India and 4 Ors.