Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 578 (GAU)

Penkumoni Pegu v. State of Assam and Ors.

2015-05-14

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2015
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.:-- Heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. 2. By filing this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner seeks quashing of the decision of the State Level Committee (SLC) dated 01.02.201-rejecting her case for appointment on compassionate ground. 3. Case of the petitioner is that her husband Raghunath Pegu was the Secretary of Misamora Gaon Panchayat in the district of Dhemaji. He was a regular Government servant. He died-in-harness on 22.02.2006 leaving behind the petitioner and one miner and one minor daughter. Petitioner's husband was the sole bread earner of the family and because of his sudden death, the family faced acute financial hardship. To overcome re situation, petitioner submitted an application on 26.09.2006 before the respondents seeking appointment on compassionate ground either in a Gr-HI vacancy or in a Gr-IV vacancy. 4. Case of the petitioner was placed before the District Level Committee (DLC), Dhemaji on 27.06.2011. DLC recommended appointment of the petitioner in a Gr-III post against 25 numbers of available Gr-HI vacancies. The minutes of the DLC meeting dated 27.06.2011 were forwarded to the SLC on 18.10.2011. Unfortunately, the SLC in its meeting held on 01.02.2014 rejected the recommendation of the petitioner on the ground that more than 2 years had passed from the date of making the application. Hence, this writ petition. 5. On notice being issued, respondent No.1 has filed affidavit enclosing therewith the minutes of the SLC meeting held on 01.02.2014. It is stated that case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that more than 2 years had passed from the date of application. 6. This Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das and Ors. vs. State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674 had laid down 10 principles to be considered by the authority while deciding case of compassionate appointment. As per principle 10, it was laid down that if the applications of eligible candidates remain pending and cannot be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of 2 (two) years from the date of making of such applications, all such applications will require no further consideration and must be understood to have spent their force. 7. As per principle 10, it was laid down that if the applications of eligible candidates remain pending and cannot be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of 2 (two) years from the date of making of such applications, all such applications will require no further consideration and must be understood to have spent their force. 7. A careful reading of the aforesaid principle would indicate that if an application seeking compassionate appointment is pending and cannot be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of 2 (two) years, the same would require no further consideration. 8. Coming to the facts of the present case, petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was considered by the DLC and was in fact recommended for appointment on 27.06.2011 against 25 available vacancies in Gr-III. Therefore, neither can it be said the petitioner's application was pending without consideration nor can it be said it was re-ding for lack of vacancies. In view of the recommendation made by the DLC, though not final, it cannot be said that the application was pending without consideration. The fact of the matter is that the application was considered and recommendation was made for appointment. Additionally, there was lapse on the part of the authorities in placing the DLC recommendation dated 27.06.2011 before the SLC on 01.02.2014 i.e. after almost 3 years. 9. Therefore, in such circumstances, Court is of the view that rejection of the case of the petitioner by the SLC in its meeting held on 01.02.2014 on the ground that more than 2 years had passed from the date of application is not justified and cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, the said decision of the SLC dated 01.02.2014 in respect of the petitioner is set aside and quashed. Matter is remanded back for fresh consideration by the SLC in its next meeting keeping in mind the discussions made above. Writ petition is disposed of. -