Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 119 (GAU)

Abul Hussain Laskar v. State of Assam & Ors.

2016-02-19

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2016
Michael Zothankhuma, J.:-- Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, counsel for the petitioner who submits that the petitioner's father died in harness on 12.6.2006 while working as a regular Khalasi in the PHE Department. The petitioner preferred an application for compassionate appointment on 13.7.2006. The DLC considered the petitioner's application along with other persons on 10.12.2008 and rejected the case of the petitioner and three other persons for nonavailability of vacancies. 2. Petitioner's counsel submits that one of the persons whose application was rejected along with the petitioner's application in the DLC meeting dated 10.12.2008 had filed WP(C) No.591/2009 challenging the minutes of the DLC meeting held on 10.12.2008. This Court vide order dated 22.9.2010 disposed off WP(C) 591/2009 directing the DLC to reconsider the case of the petitioner therein by assigning reasons in view of the fact that the rejection of the petitioner's application did not contain any reason. Petitioner's counsel submits that the present case being a covered matter, the writ petition should be allowed as per the order dated 22.9.2010 passed in WP(C) 591/2009. 3. Mrs. J.M. Konwar, counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the petitioner's father died on 12.4.2006 and though the petitioner could have made use of the judgment of this Court in WP(C) 591/2009 earlier, the petitioner by not being vigilant has lost his right to state that the order dated 22.9.2010 passed in WP(C) 591/2009 is applicable to the present case with its altered fact situation. 4. Mrs. J.M. Konwar also submits that the object of giving appointment on compassionate ground is only to mitigate the loss that has occurred in the initial stage of death of a Government employee. She submits that as the petitioner has survived for more than nine years after the death of his father, he does not have a right to be re-considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties. 6. Petitioner's submission to the effect that the order dated 22.9.2010 passed in WP(C) 591/2009 is applicable to the present case has to be decided. There has been a considerable lapse of time between the order dated 22.9.2010 and today and approximately five years have passed since then. It is also to be noted that in WP(C) 591/2009, the petitioner had arrayed the recommended persons as party respondents. There has been a considerable lapse of time between the order dated 22.9.2010 and today and approximately five years have passed since then. It is also to be noted that in WP(C) 591/2009, the petitioner had arrayed the recommended persons as party respondents. In the present case, though the petitioner had initially arrayed the persons whose names were recommended as party respondents, but subsequently the names of the recommended persons have been struck off on the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner vide order dated 4.1.2016. Thus, the order dated 22.9.2010 passed in WP(C) 591/2009 cannot be made applicable with the changed scenario as a direction to reconsider the case of the petitioner could entail affecting the rights of those persons who had been recommended by the DLC on 10.12.2008 to be appointed to vacant posts and who are not parties to the present case. The petitioner should have been more vigilant and prayed for early hearing of the present matter on the ground that a similar case had been disposed off in the year 2010. However, the petitioner has not been vigilant and has in fact slept over his right for the last five years even though the order dated 22.9.2010 passed in WP(C) 591/2009 covered the facts of the present case at that time. 7. In the case of Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in AIR 1985 SC 167 , the Supreme Court has held that a High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution unless the persons who would be vitally affected by the decision are present. In the present case, the petitioner had initially impleaded the recommended candidates as party respondent Nos.6 to 11. However, on the prayer of the petitioner, the names of the respondent Nos.6 to 11 were struck off vide order dated 4.1.2016. Thus, even if this Court was to give a direction for re-consideration of the petitioner's case, the said re-consideration would have to be done in respect of those posts in which the respondent Nos.6 to 11, who were struck off, were recommended. The said direction accordingly cannot be given as the struck off parties are necessary parties and there will be violation of the principles of natural justice if the present writ petition is allowed. 8. The said direction accordingly cannot be given as the struck off parties are necessary parties and there will be violation of the principles of natural justice if the present writ petition is allowed. 8. In the case of Achyut Ranjan Das v. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674, this Court has held that delay in making appointment would be fatal with the passage of time and the State and the courts must understand that the family of the deceased has been able to meet the crisis caused upon death of the sole bread earner. It is also to be kept in mind that the object of appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the loss that has occurred in the initial stage after the death of an employee. In the present case, more than nine years have elapsed from the date of death of the petitioner's father. 9. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any ground to allow the writ petition. 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ---------