Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 411 (GAU)

Runu Talukdar v. Sumeet Jerath and ors

2014-04-07

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2014
1. This petition seeks initiation of contempt proceeding against the respondents for alleged willful and deliberate violation of the order of this court dated 16.5.2011 passed in WP(C) No.4956/2010. 2. Case of the petitioner is that her husband Uttam Talukdar was a Lower Division Assistant (LDA) serving in the office of District Transport Officer (DTO), Kamrup, Guwahati. Uttam Talukdar died in harness on 8.10.2004. 3. Uttam Talukdar was the sole bread earner of the family. On his sudden demise, petitioner faced grave financial hardship. In such circumstances, she submitted an application dated 10.11.2004 before the Commissioner of Transport, Assam seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Along with her application, she submitted copies of supporting documents. The said application of the petitioner was forwarded to the Commissioner by the DTO, Kamrup, Guwahati along with a forwarding letter dated 17.11.2004. 4. With the grievance that case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was not being considered, petitioner approached this court by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.4956/2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court by order dated 16.5.2011 directing the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in terms of the guidelines formulated in Achyut Ranjan Das v. State of Assam, 2006 (4) GLT 674 and Faziron Nessa v. State of Assam, 2010 (4) GLT 340. 5. By order dated 10.6.2011 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transport Department, case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that her application seeking appointment on compassionate ground was received by the department after a gap of more than five years and as such the application had lost its force by then. 6. On 2.3.2012, notice on the contempt petition was issued. 7. In the affidavit filed by respondent No.3 on 5.6.2012, it is admitted that application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was forwarded to the Commissioner of Transport by the DTO on 17.11.2004 but it is stated that all the relevant documents were not enclosed. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari furnished financial status report of the petitioner on 25.5.2010 to the Government. 8. An affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4 on 2.12.2013. It is stated that though the case of the petitioner was rejected by the Government on 10.6.2011, case of the petitioner was placed before the District Level Committee (DLC), Nalbari on 9.4.2012. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari furnished financial status report of the petitioner on 25.5.2010 to the Government. 8. An affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4 on 2.12.2013. It is stated that though the case of the petitioner was rejected by the Government on 10.6.2011, case of the petitioner was placed before the District Level Committee (DLC), Nalbari on 9.4.2012. The DLC recorded that earlier there was no DLC. So the proposal of the petitioner was directly sent to the Government which was rejected. Following the High Court order, case of the petitioner was reconsidered and as per proposal received from the DTO, Nalbari, DLC recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on special consideration. 9. Respondent No.3 has filed another affidavit on 10.2.2014. It is admitted that application of the petitioner was forwarded by the DTO, Kamrup on 17.11.2004 but it is stated that it was not supported by all relevant documents. Commissioner of Transport submitted the required documents to the Government on 16.6.2010. Therefore, case of the petitioner could not be placed before the State Level Committee (SLC) in its last meeting held on 22.6.2009. Moreover, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari furnished the financial status report of the petitioner only on 25.5.2010. Respondent No.3 has admitted that the DLC, Nalbari in its meeting held on 9.4.2012 recommended the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. It is further stated that the recommendation of the DLC was thereafter placed before the SLC but the SLC in its meeting held on 6.7.2013 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that she has remarried after the death of her husband. 10. I have heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U. Rajbongshi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Also heard Ms. J.M. Konwar, learned Counsel for respondent No.4. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this court by order dated 16.5.2011 had directed consideration of the case of the petitioner in terms of the guidelines laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das and Faziron Nessa. But the case of the petitioner was not examined as per procedure laid down in the said judgments. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this court by order dated 16.5.2011 had directed consideration of the case of the petitioner in terms of the guidelines laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das and Faziron Nessa. But the case of the petitioner was not examined as per procedure laid down in the said judgments. He submits that the way the case of the petitioner was handled clearly indicates that it was dealt with most mechanically and by not following the letter and spirit of the law laid down in the above two judgments. There is thus intentional and deliberate violation of this court's order. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submit that though initially the case of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 10.6.2011 on the ground that claim of the petitioner could not be considered after a gap of more than five years, the same was reconsidered by the SLC following recommendation by the DLC. SLC rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that she has remarried after the death of her husband. Thus, claim of the petitioner was examined but could not be accepted. Therefore, order of this court has been complied with and no case for contempt is made out. 13. Submissions made have been considered. 14. This is a case relating to claim for appointment on compassionate ground. It is not disputed that petitioner's husband died in harness on 8.10.2004. Petitioner submitted application seeking appointment on compassionate ground immediately thereafter on 10.11.2004, which was forwarded by the DTO, Kamrup, Guwahati to the Commissioner of Transport, Assam on 17.11.2004. 15. This court by the order dated 16.5.2011 directed the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with the procedure laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das and in Faziron Nessa. 16. In Achyut Ranjan Das, this court laid down the procedure for considering claims of compassionate appointment. Each claim has to be first placed before the concerned DLC which after consideration may recommend the case to the SLC or reject the case if the criteria for such appointment is not fulfilled. On case being placed before the SLC, it shall consider the recommendation of the DLC and take appropriate decision thereafter. This process is required to be completed within an outer limit of two years. On case being placed before the SLC, it shall consider the recommendation of the DLC and take appropriate decision thereafter. This process is required to be completed within an outer limit of two years. If a claim for compassionate appointment remains pending for two years or more, it would be understood that the claim has lost its force. An exception was made to the above procedure insofar the claims of compassionate appointment which were pending on the date of judgment in Achyut Ranjan Das were considered. This Court held that as a one-time measure, all such pending applications should be taken up for consideration. In Faziron Nessa, the above procedure laid down by this Court was reiterated. Additionally, it was held that the three months period provided under the Scheme to make applications for compassionate appointment i.e. three months from the date of death of the Government servant, was held to be inadequate and it was directed that a period of twelve months should be provided. 17. Viewed in the above context, the first order of rejection dated 10.6.2011 passed by the respondent No.1 is clearly not in conformity with the direction of this Court dated 16.5.2011. Firstly, the respondent No.1 himself took the decision to reject the case of the petitioner without the claim of the petitioner being considered either by the DLC or by the SLC. Therefore, this Decision by the respondent No.1 is clearly without any authority. Moreover, when in Achyut Ranjan Das this Court had directed consideration of all pending applications as a one-time measure, claim of the petitioner (which was pending at the time of delivery of judgment in Achyut Ranjan Das) could not have been rejected on the ground that the application was received in the department after more than five years and as such it had lost its force by then. To that extent there is violation of the direction of this court dated 16.5.2011. 18. Perhaps realizing the above, case of the petitioner was thereafter placed before the DLC, Nalbari which in its meeting held on 9.4.2012 recommended appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. This was forwarded by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transport Department on 18.4.2012. Case of the petitioner was placed before the SLC in its meeting held on 6.7.2013. This was forwarded by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transport Department on 18.4.2012. Case of the petitioner was placed before the SLC in its meeting held on 6.7.2013. However, SLC rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that she has remarried after the death of her husband. 19. The factum of remarriage has been denied by the petitioner in her rejoinder affidavit filed on 25.2.2014. It is stated that after the death of her husband, petitioner started residing in the residence of her father-in-law Govinda Talukdar in his village at Nalbari. The family comprised of father-in-law, mother-in-law and younger brother-in-law. Mother-in-law lost her eye sight because of severe diabetes. Father-in-law died on 2.2.2008. On the day of shraddha, the village elders who had gathered in their residence decided that the petitioner and her brother-in-law should live together. According to the petitioner, though they are staying in the same house, which has the sanction of the community because of situational compulsion, there is no marital relationship between them. 20. It appears that in the Scheme framed by the Government of Assam providing for appointment on compassionate ground, only widow, son and unmarried daughter of the deceased Government servant have been made eligible for such appointment. While the distinction between son and daughter, i.e., both unmarried and married son being eligible whereas only unmarried daughter is eligible and a married daughter is not eligible, is highly questionable being gender insensitive and may fall foul of articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, this Court refrains from going into that issue since the Scheme is not under challenge and keeping in mind the limited scope of interference in a contempt proceeding. Nonetheless, this court is concerned about the full and complete implementation and compliance of this court's order in letter and spirit. Petitioner has sought for appointment on compassionate ground as the widow of the deceased Government servant. In the considered opinion of the court, the question whether petitioner has subsequently remarried or not is really immaterial in the facts and circumstances of the case. Eligibility of the candidate such as the petitioner has to be reckoned with reference to the date of making the application and not with reference to the date of consideration. In the considered opinion of the court, the question whether petitioner has subsequently remarried or not is really immaterial in the facts and circumstances of the case. Eligibility of the candidate such as the petitioner has to be reckoned with reference to the date of making the application and not with reference to the date of consideration. As already noticed above, husband of the petitioner expired on 8.10.2004 and she submitted application immediately thereafter on 10.11.2004, which was forwarded by the DTO to the Commissioner on 17.11.2004. On that day, admittedly she had not remarried. Even if the petitioner had remarried in the interregnum (which she denies), that would not be a ground for rejecting her case. It cannot be the law that an unmarried daughter or a widow who applies for compassionate appointment should remain a spinster or a widow for the rest of her life to enable her to get compassionate appointment or to sustain such appointment. Such an approach would be opposed to our constitutional objective of women's empowerment to the fullest extent and also abhorrent to modern thinking. 21. Accordingly, decision of the SLC dated 6.7.2013 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the alleged ground of her remarriage cannot be sustained. 22. Having regard to the above and in tune with the order of this court dated 16.5.2011 passed in WP(C) No.4956/2010, it is hereby directed that case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment should now be placed again before the SLC immediately so that it can be taken up in the next meeting of SLC. SLC shall consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the discussions made above. Consequential departmental steps shall be taken thereafter. It will be the responsibility of respondent No.1 to ensure compliance of this order. 23. Contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.