Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1063 (GAU)

Basab Ranjan Deb v. State of Assam

2014-12-16

A.K.GOSWAMI

body2014
JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.M. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, Government of Assam. The father of the petitioner expired on 12.08.2010 while working as an Upper Division Assistant in the Public Works Department, Government of Assam, leaving behind his wife and three children, including the present petitioner. The petitioner submitted an application, on 21.01.2011, for appointment on compassionate ground to any post in Grade-Ill. In the District Level Committee Meeting, held on 21.12.2011, the case of the petitioner was rejected as follows: "1. Sri Basab Ranjan Deb, S/O Lt. Bharamar Kanta Deb has submitted petition lately so committee could not consider. Hence his case is rejected." 2. Mr. Biswas has submitted that the reasons stated for rejection of the case of the petitioner is wholly untenable in law inasmuch as he had filed the application even before expiry of five months from the date of the death of his father and, therefore, the District Level Committee is required to be directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh. 3. Mr. R.M. Deka, learned Standing counsel, PWD, has submitted that there was no vacancy as reflected in the minutes of the meeting of the District Level Committee. He has also pointed out that because of non-availability of vacancy, the application of one Rahul Kanti Nath, whose application was pending from 16.05.2002, was rejected as time-barred as the proposal was remaining pending for more than a period of two years. 4. There is an Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2009 on the subject of revised guidelines for appointment on compassionate ground to the widow or son or unmarried daughter or adopted son, adopted unmarried daughter of a Government servant who dies in harness with a view to give immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased in a Class - III/Class - IV post (not above the level of Lower Division Assistant) limiting such appointment to 5% of vacancies occurring in a year. It is not necessary for this Court to dilate on the various clauses of the said memorandum for the purpose of this case. It is not necessary for this Court to dilate on the various clauses of the said memorandum for the purpose of this case. Suffice is to note that Clause -1 of the said revised guidelines requires application for appointment under the scheme in prescribed format to be submitted within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of death of the person, to the respective office/department under which the person dies in harness. It is also stipulated that the application submitted after 3 (three) months should not be considered. 5. The aforesaid clause, in many cases, can cause hardship to many deserving candidates. The clause in question came up for consideration in the case of Faziron Nessa & Ors v. State of Assam & Ors, reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340. This Court, in the aforesaid case, held that Clause - 1 is opposed to the very concept of the scheme of compassionate appointment and further that a time limit of one year for submission of applications for compassionate appointment from the date of death of the sole bread-earner would be the appropriate limit. 6. On the face of the said pronouncement, clearly, the rejection of the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had submitted his petition belatedly cannot be sustained. 7. There is another aspect of the matter. 8. It is noticed that vacancy position was indicated in respect of the post for which the petitioner had applied as nil and the case of one of the applicants, namely, Rahul Kanti Nath, was closed, as the application had been pending for more than two years due to want of vacancy. 9. In Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors v. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674, this Court had mandated that if the application of eligible candidates remain pending and cannot be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of two years from the date of making such application, such application would require no further consideration and must be understood to have spent their force. 10. The date of application of the petitioner and the date of meeting of the District Level Selection Committee, as already noted, are 01.01.2011 and 21.12.2011, respectively. 10. The date of application of the petitioner and the date of meeting of the District Level Selection Committee, as already noted, are 01.01.2011 and 21.12.2011, respectively. The two years period had not expired and, therefore, the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, PWD, that there being no vacancy, on that count also the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment would have merited rejection, cannot be accepted. Not even one year had gone by from the date of filing of the application till consideration of the case of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the application has to be kept alive till the period of two years is over and, in the interregnum, subject to availability of vacancy, the case of the petitioner would have required consideration. 11. In the conspectus of the above factual matrix, I am of the considered opinion that the decision of the District Level Selection Committee, so far as the petitioner is concerned, in the meeting held on 21.12.2011, is required to be interfered with. 12. The rejection order of the petitioner's case, accordingly, is set aside. Even though the period of two years has now elapsed, in the attending facts and circumstances, the case of the petitioner is required to be considered as a one-time measure and as such, a writ of mandamus is issued to the District Level Selection Committee to consider the case of the petitioner in the next meeting of the District Level Selection Committee. The writ petition is allowed as indicated hereinabove. Petition Allowed.