Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1055 (GAU)

Renu Boro v. State of Assam

2017-08-04

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A. Mannaf, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 as well as Ms. R.B. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7. 2. All the petitioners herein are aggrieved by a common cause of action inasmuch as their respective husbands were killed in extremist violence during the period of 1995-2004. The husband of the petitioner No. 1 was killed by extremist on 2.5.1998, the husband of the petitioner No. 2 was killed by extremist on 9.5.1997, the husband of the petitioner No. 3 was killed by NDFB extremist on 11.11.2002 and the husband of the petitioner No. 4 was killed by extremists on 14.4.2006. 3. The petitioners have also annexed the respective death certificates and legal heir certificates as well as the respective police reports, which indicates that the respective husbands of the petitioners were killed in extremist violence. The petitioners have relied upon a notification dated 22.6.2004 of the Department of Personnel (B) Department, wherein, it is provided that the ex gratia amount payable to the next of kin of a person killed in extremist violence has been increased to Rs. 3,00,000. The said notification also provides that preference to the members of the affected families as certified by the competent district authority, would be given in matters of recruitment in government and semi-government jobs. 4. Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid notification, the petitioners have claimed that they are entitled to ex gratia amount of Rs. 3,00,000. The petitioners have also claimed that in view of the said clause in the notification dated 22.6.2004, they are also entitled to be appointed in government jobs. 5. It is stated by Mr. S.S. Roy, learned State counsel that in respect of the petitioner No. 4, the entire amount of Rs. 3,00,000 ex gratia had already been made. In respect of other three petitioners, the learned State counsel by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 5 stated that the respective applications of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been forwarded to the concerned Revenue Circle Officers for enquiry and detailed report regarding the next of kin, etc. In respect of other three petitioners, the learned State counsel by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 5 stated that the respective applications of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been forwarded to the concerned Revenue Circle Officers for enquiry and detailed report regarding the next of kin, etc. It is also stated that once the said enquiry is completed and if the result of the enquiry goes in favour of the petitioners, the aforesaid amount would be paid. 6. Mr. A. Mannaf, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 had already received Rs. 1,00,000 each and, therefore, they are entitled to the balance of Rs. 2,00,000 each being the ex gratia payment. 7. In view of the averment made in paragraph-5 of the said affidavit-in-opposition dated 18.5.2017, this writ petition is disposed of by providing that the concerned respondent-authorities shall complete the process of enquiry and verification and bring the same to its logical end within a period of 1 month from today. 8. In the event of enquiry and verification, if it is found that the petitioners are entitled to the balance payment of Rs. 2,00,000 each, the respondent-authorities shall pay the said amount to the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 within a period one month thereafter. 9. As regards the other contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to be appointed in government jobs as provided in clause 1 of the notification dated 22.6.2004, it is noticed that the said clause merely provides that preference would be given to the members of the affected families in the matter of recruitment to government jobs and semi-government jobs. 10. The expression ‘preference’ means that in the event, all other parameters are equal with any other candidate, in such event, the concerned candidate, who seeks preference would be given the job over others. The expression ‘preference’ does not mean that they are entitled to government jobs straightaway without participating in any regular selection process. 11. In such view of the matter, it is provided that in the event, any member of the petitioner Nos. The expression ‘preference’ does not mean that they are entitled to government jobs straightaway without participating in any regular selection process. 11. In such view of the matter, it is provided that in the event, any member of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 family participate in a regular selection process initiated by the government authorities and in the event, their merit position become equal with some other candidates, who also participates in such selection, in such event, by invoking of the provision of the notification dated 22.6.2004, the preferred candidate would be given appointment. Writ petition is accordingly closed.