Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 747 (GAU)

Dipak Paswan v. State of Assam and Ors.

2014-07-30

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2014
Ujjal Bhuyan, J. -- This case was heard on 16-07-2014 and today is fixed for delivery of judgment. 2. By way of this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of the decision of the State Level Committee dated 30-10-2010 rejecting his case for appointment on compassionate ground and further seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground. 3. Case of the petitioner is that he belongs to a very poor Scheduled Caste (Harijan) family. His father Birina Paswan was serving as Chowkidar (Grade-IV) in the office of the Executive Engineer (Agriculture), Jorhat Division under the Agriculture Department, Government of Assam. His father died in harness on 17-03-2004. Petitioner submitted application before the authority on 22-06-2004 seeking appointment on compassionate ground as his late father was the only earning member of the family and on his death, the family was left without any source of income. As a result, the family was facing grave hardship and was in need of immediate relief. 4. District Level Committee (DLC) of Jorhat District constituted to consider cases of compassionate appointment in different establishments within Jorhat district in its meeting held on 01-08-2007 considered the case of the petitioner and others. In respect of the establishment of Executive Engineer (Agriculture), Jorhat, DLC noted that there were five existing vacancies in Grade-III and four existing vacancies in Grade-IV. It was held that one vacancy each in Grade-III and Grade-IV were to be filled up by way of compassionate appointment as those vacancies came within the prescribed percentage i.e., 5% earmarked for appointment on compassionate ground. It was further noted that there were four applications each for appointment on compassionate ground against Grade-III and Grade-IV. In respect of Grade-III, petitioner was recommended by the DLC. 5. State Level Committee (SLC) in its meeting held on 30-10-2010 considered the recommendations in respect of Jorhat district. SLC rejected the cases of the petitioner and one Smti. Chitra Phukan for Grade-IV post on the ground that they had applied for appointment on compassionate ground after a period of more than two years and five years respectively from the date of death of their father/husband. SLC further recorded that apart from the delay in filing application, admissible vacancy position for compassionate appointment was found less than 5 %. Be it stated that SLC recommended one Smti. SLC further recorded that apart from the delay in filing application, admissible vacancy position for compassionate appointment was found less than 5 %. Be it stated that SLC recommended one Smti. Ranju Gohain Phukan for appointment against Grade-III vacancy subject to condonation of her overage in view of her immediate necessity. 6. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 7. This Court by order dated 02-02-2011 had admitted the writ petition for hearing. 8. Respondent No.7 in his affidavit has stated that case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was examined by the DLC which recommended him for appointment in Grade-III post. The recommendation was forwarded to the SLC on 08-06-2008. He further stated that Smti. Ranju Gohain Phukan was recommended by the DLC in its meeting held on 23-12-2009. 9. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 have filed a common affidavit. Stand taken in the said affidavit is that date of application of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground was 25-02-2007 and not 22-06-2004 as claimed by the petitioner, thus after 2 years from the date of death of his father which was in violation of the Government guidelines as per which such application has to be submitted within 2 years from the date of death of the Government servant. SLC in its meeting held on 30-10-2010 selected only two candidates, one for Grade-III and one for Grade-IV, considering that both the candidates were widow having minor children and were facing financial crisis. As per Government guidelines, only 5 % of the total vacancies occurring in a year are reserved for appointment on compassionate ground. Following such guidelines, one candidate each in Grade- III and Grade- IV were recommended by the SLC for appointment, leaving no scope to consider the case of the petitioner. 10. Petitioner in his reply affidavit denied that the date of his application for appointment on compassionate ground was 25-02-2007 and reiterated that the application was submitted immediately after the death of his father on 22-06-2004 which could be easily verified from the record. Petitioner has denied the contention of the respondents that there were no vacancies available against the earmarked quota for compassionate appointment against which petitioner's case could have been considered. Rejection of the case of the petitioner is not justified. 11. Heard Mr. D. Borah, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Petitioner has denied the contention of the respondents that there were no vacancies available against the earmarked quota for compassionate appointment against which petitioner's case could have been considered. Rejection of the case of the petitioner is not justified. 11. Heard Mr. D. Borah, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.Chamaria, learned Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department. 12. Submissions of learned Counsel for the parties are on pleaded lines. According to Mr. Borah, both the grounds on which the case of the petitioner has been rejected are wholly untenable. Record would show that petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate ground was filed on 22-06-2004 i.e. after about 3 months from the date of death of his father and not beyond 2 years as contended by the respondents. The second ground of rejection is also not tenable in as much as firstly, SLC did not indicate year wise vacancy in Grade-III for appointment on compassionate ground; secondly, DLC had recommended appointment of the petitioner against a specific Grade-III vacancy. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court dated 23-04-2014 passed in WP(C) No.4008/2012 (Smti. Chitra Phukan -Vs- State of Assam and others) in support of his contention that case of the petitioner requires reconsideration by the SLC. 13. Submissions made by Mr. Borah, learned Counsel for the petitioner has been opposed by Mr. Chamaria, learned Counsel for the respondents. He submits that petitioner cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground as a matter of right. As a matter of fact, case of the petitioner was duly considered by the DLC as well as by the SLC. After due consideration and for two good reasons, case of the petitioner was rejected by the SLC. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for. He therefore seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 14. Submissions made have been considered. 15. As already noticed above, case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the SLC on two counts- (i) application was filed after a period of more than two years from the date of death of his father; (ii) there was no vacancy for appointment on compassionate ground in view of appointing some other person on such ground. Be it stated that rejection of the case of the petitioner was on similar lines as in the case of Smti. Chitra Phukan. Be it stated that rejection of the case of the petitioner was on similar lines as in the case of Smti. Chitra Phukan. 16. From the documents placed on record it is seen that respondent No.5 in his letter dated 24-06-2004 addressed to the Director of Agriculture, Assam (respondent No.4) had also forwarded the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to the respondent No.4 for necessary action. This would mean that the application of the petitioner was received by the respondent No.5 prior to 24-06-2004. Petitioner's father had expired on 17-03-2004. Thus, as per the documents of respondents themselves, petitioner had admittedly submitted his application within the period of two years from the date of death of his father as stipulated in the guidelines. It is in this context that DLC in its meeting held on 01-08-2007 had considered the case of the petitioner. DLC did not say that petitioner had submitted application two years after the death of his father and therefore, his case could not be considered. On the contrary, DLC having admittedly found the application filed by the petitioner to be in order and in conformity with the guidelines issued by the Government of Assam, recommended his case to the SLC. Thus, in my view, the first ground on which the case of the petitioner was rejected is non-existent and cannot stand the scrutiny of law. 17. The second ground on which the case of the petitioner was rejected was non-availability of adequate number of vacant Grade-IV post under the 5 % quota earmarked for appointment on compassionate ground. As already noticed above, DLC in its proceedings dated 01-08-2007 had clearly mentioned the vacancy position. From the minutes of the DLC meeting, it is evident that petitioner was recommended against Grade-III post, one vacancy being available for appointment on compassionate ground. This meeting of DLC had evidently considered vacancies which arose upto 30-07-2007 since the vacancies were referred to in the minutes as existing vacancies. From the affidavit of respondent No.7 it is clear that Smti. Ranju Gohain Phukan who was recommended by the SLC for appointment in Grade-III was recommended by the DLC in its meeting held on 23-12-2009 i.e. against a vacancy which arose after 01-08-2007 i.e., the date of the DLC meeting which had considered and recommended the case of the petitioner. From the affidavit of respondent No.7 it is clear that Smti. Ranju Gohain Phukan who was recommended by the SLC for appointment in Grade-III was recommended by the DLC in its meeting held on 23-12-2009 i.e. against a vacancy which arose after 01-08-2007 i.e., the date of the DLC meeting which had considered and recommended the case of the petitioner. That being the position, SLC could not have rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground of non-availability of vacancy, there being clear vacancy mentioned by the DLC in its proceeding dated 01-08-2007. Appointment of another person against a Grade-IV vacancy cannot be a ground to reject the case of the petitioner when he was admittedly recommended by the DLC against a Grade-III vacancy, which was existent on the date of recommendation. Thus, the second ground for rejection of the case of the petitioner cannot also be sustained. 18. This was the view of this Court while deciding the case of Smti. Chitra Phukan whose case was also rejected by the SLC on similar grounds. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed by this Court in Smti. Chitra Phukan. 19. In view of above, decision of SLC dated 30-10-2010 in so far it relates to rejection of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is set aside and quashed. SLC shall now take a fresh decision on the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in its next meeting keeping in mind the observations and findings recorded by this Court in the present judgment. 20. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. No cost.