Niren Singha Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6 CUM CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND

¶12

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY

¶13

TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 06

¶14

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

¶15

IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 3

¶16

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶17

SILCHAR MECHANICAL DIVISION (IRRIGATION) KANAKPUR SILCHAR 06

¶18

Page No.# 2/5

¶19

5:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND CACHAR TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR ASSA

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N ISLAM, MR. T K DEY,MS. L WAJEEDA

¶21

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, IRRIGATION

¶22

BEFORE

¶23

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶24

ORDER

¶25

05/06/2026

¶26

Heard Ms. L Wajeeda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Gogoi, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 5 and Mr. N Upadhayay, learned Standing counsel, Irrigation Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.

¶27

2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has assailed the decision of the jurisdictional District Level Committee in rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, by holding that the said application was filed after much delay and at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was only around 8 years. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for a fresh consideration of the case of the petitioner.

¶28

3. The father of the petitioner, while working as a Grade-III employee in the

¶29

Page No.# 3/5

¶30

establishment of the Executive Engineer, Silchar Mechanical Division (Irrigation), had died-in-harness on 09.04.2008. Proximate to the time of death of the father of the petitioner, it is found from the materials on record that the mother of the petitioner had submitted an application for consideration of a case for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶31

4. From the materials coming on record, it is noticed that the petitioner at the time of death of his father, was aged around 8 years. The application submitted by the mother of the petitioner proximate to the time of death of the father of the petitioner is found not to have been pursued by the mother. The family, thereafter, waited till the petitioner had attained the age of majority and thereafter, a fresh application was submitted by the mother of the petitioner on 12.12.2018, praying for consideration of the case of the petitioner, herein, for appointment on compassionate grounds. The said application filed by the mother of the petitioner came to be placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee. The jurisdictional District Level Committee, in its meeting held on 09.07.2019, considered the application submitted by the petitioner and rejected the same by holding as follows:-

¶32

“Sl.3, Sri Niren Singha is applied for the post of Gr.III/IV on 18/12/2018 which is found to be late submission of the application. It is seen that at the time of death of his father he was minor (i.e. aged about 8 years). The DLC could not be recommended the name of Sri Niren Singha for post applied for as per Point No. 16 of Govt. OM No. ABP.50/2006/Pt/182, Dated 01.06.2015 in which it is clearly mentioned that the lower age limit shall, however, in no case be relaxed below 18 years. Age eligibility shall be determined with reference to the date of application not the date of appointment. Since the application not received in time and in the mean time the application spent its force as per Principle-10 of the Govt. OM No. ABP.50/2006/ Pt./182, Dated 01.06.2015. Therefore, the name of Sri Niren Singha could not be recommended due

¶33

Page No.# 4/5

¶34

to above grounds. Hence rejected.”

¶35

5. The conclusions drawn by the jurisdictional District Level Committee has been perused by this Court. This Court finds that the jurisdictional District Level Committee had noticed that the application submitted on behalf of the petitioner was so submitted after around 10 years from the date of death of the Government employee in harness. Further, it was found that the application for compassionate appointment made in respect of the deceased Government servant, having remained unconsidered for more than 2 (two) years, the same had spent its force.

¶36

6. This Court has considered the said conclusions drawn by the District Level Committee and finds that the same are germane to the issue arising in the present proceedings and accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the said conclusions would not mandate an interference from this Court.

¶37

7. As noticed hereinabove, the father of the petitioner had died-in-harness on 09.04.2008. An application was, thereafter, submitted by the mother of the petitioner for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate grounds, on 18.07.2008. The said application submitted by the mother of the petitioner, is not found to have been perused by her, although, it is projected that the petitioner’s family was in dire need for a member of the family to be appointed on compassionate grounds to meet the ends of the family.

¶38

8. The non-prosecution by the mother of the application submitted by her for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate grounds and the long lapse of time occasioning before a fresh application was so submitted in the matter on behalf of the petitioner on 12.12.2018, this Court finds that the

¶39

Page No.# 5/5

¶40

immediacy as required to be followed in a matter of compassionate appointment was lost in the present case. The claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition is seen to be a stale claim and accordingly, it would not be permissible for this Court at this distant point of time to issue any mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶41

[Refer decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors., reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219].

¶42

9. In view of the above discussion, the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition stands rejected. The writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

Niren Singha v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niren Singha v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gautam Kalita Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Smti. Sumita Rudra Paul @ Sumita Rudra Paul (Talukdar) Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Suman Mazumdar Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Raju Kumar Sarma Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Zakir Hussain Sarkar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Smti Moni Sharma Vs the Union of India and Ors.