Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 896 (GAU)

Juned Ahmed Mazarbhuiya v. State of Assam & Ors.

2014-09-19

T.VAIPHEI

body2014
T. Vaiphei, J. -- After hearing Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. R. Mazumdar, the learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department, and Mrs. R. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate, it is evident that this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of laches. 2. The late Abdul Mannan Mazarbhuiya, father of the petitioner, died on 4-6-2000, while he was serving as Hindi teacher of Arzid Ali Memorial M.E. School, Hailakandi leaving his wife, one daughter and two sons including the petitioner. At the time of the death of his father, the petitioner was about 15 years old and, therefore, a minor. His mother initially applied for compassionate appointment in her name on 10-2-2001 before the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi. Several correspondences ensued thereafter but nothing came out of it. In the meantime, the petitioner, having attained majority, submitted an application for compassionate in his name on 23-3-2005 in place of his mother. The petitioner also filed WP(C) No. 4112 of 2005 before this Court, which by the order dated 27-6-2005 disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner accordingly submitted the copy of the said order to the respondent No. 2, but nothing has been done by the respondent No. 2 which prompted him to initiate this second round of litigation. It may be noted that no contempt petition had ever been filed by him against the respondents for not complying with the order of this Court before filing this second writ petition. 3. According to the petitioner, this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das & ors. v. State of Assam and others, 2006 (4) GLT 674 has laid down certain guidelines for consideration in the matter of compassionate appointment such as consideration of pending applications within a period of four months except those applications which remained pending and could not be considered for want of vacancies for a period of two years from the date of making the application. It is the contention of the petitioner that as the delay is not attributable to his acts of omission or commission, his case could have been duly considered. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that as the delay is not attributable to his acts of omission or commission, his case could have been duly considered. 4. The effect of laches in in the matter of compassionate appointment came up for consideration before the Apex Court in State of J&K and another v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766 . The underlying principles are best understood by reproducing para 10 of the judgment, which reads thus: “10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeal should be allowed. Certain facts are not in dispute. The father of the applicant who was in service, died in harness in March 1987 and not the first time, the application was made by the applicant after more than four years i.e. in September 1991. The family thus survived for more than four years after the death of the applicant's father. Even at that time, the applicant, under the relevant guidelines, could not have been appointed and hence relaxation was prayed. It is no doubt true that the case of the applicant was favourably considered by the departments and recommendation was made, but it is also a fact which has come on record that in March, 1996, a decision was taken by the authorities not to give appointment to the applicant on compassionate ground. From the affidavit-in-reply filed by the authorities in the High Court as also from the finding of the learned Single Judge, it is clear that the applicant had knowledge about rejection of his application in 1996 itself. Nothing was done by the applicant against the said decision. Considerable period elapsed and only in 1999, when there was some inter-departmental communication and the Administrative Officer informed the Chief Engineer vide a letter dated 8-6-1999 that the applicant could not be appointed on compassionate ground that the applicant woke up and filed a writ petition in the High Court. It is also pertinent to note that the letter of 1999 itself recites that the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment was considered and the prayer had already been turned down by the Administrative Department and the said fact had been communicated to the office of the Chief Engineer. A copy of the said letter was also annexed to the letter of 1999. A copy of the said letter was also annexed to the letter of 1999. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and laches by holding that the applicant had not done anything for a considerable period after March 1996 when his claim was rejected even though he was informed about the decision and was very much aware of it. The Division Bench, in our view, was not justified in setting aside the said order and in directing the authorities to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment and by giving directions to give other benefits.” 5. In the instant case, the father of the petitioner died on 4-6-2000. At that time, the petitioner was admittedly a minor being born on 6-8-1985. However, his mother had initially applied for the appointment in her name on 10-2-2001, the fate whereof is unknown and unexplained. After about 4 years or so, the petitioner is said to have filed the application in his name on 7-12-2003, which was, however, alleged to have been forwarded by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi to the Deputy Inspector of Schools vide the letter dated 18-2-2003! A number of applications were thereafter filed by the petitioner but to no effect. Compare this with his pleading to the effect that “in the meantime he attained majority and as he submitted an application on 23-3-2005 praying for compassionate appointment substituting his mother”. He thereafter filed WP(C) No. 4112/05 before this Court raising his grievance against the refusal of the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground. This Court by the order dated 27-6-2006 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent No. 2 to examine his grievance within a period of two months. The petitioner accordingly submitted a copy of the said order to the respondent No. 2, but nothing has been done by him till now. It is only after 8 years that this writ petition has been filed: no contempt petition was ever filed by him against the respondents complaining of non-compliance with the directions of this Court. In my judgment, the writ petition suffers from gross delay without any satisfactory explanation or otherwise from waiver/acquiescence. Moreover, as in Sajad Ahmed Mir (supra), the petitioner has survived for the last 14 years after the death of his father. In my judgment, the writ petition suffers from gross delay without any satisfactory explanation or otherwise from waiver/acquiescence. Moreover, as in Sajad Ahmed Mir (supra), the petitioner has survived for the last 14 years after the death of his father. Consequently, the claim made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment at this belated stage cannot be entertained by this court. 6. For what has been stated in the foregoing, this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of laches. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, but by directing the parties to bear their respective costs.