Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1524 (GAU)

Khanindra Kumar Nath v. State of Assam

2017-12-11

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned State counsel. 2. The father of the petitioner, who was working as a Supply Checker under the administrative control of the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Bajali, died in harness on 24.6.2004. Upon his death, the petitioner had made an application for compassionate appointment on 23.2.2005. The said application of the petitioner was placed before the DLC, Barpeta in its meeting held on 10.3.2015. As per the minutes of the said DLC, the case of the petitioner was not recommended firstly by stating that there does not exist any sanctioned vacant post of Grade-III and Grade-IV in the concerned department/branch. Secondly, it is stated that the post of Checker against which his deceased father was working, had been abolished in the meantime and further the post of Junior Assistant in the Food and Civil Supply and Consumer Affairs Branch, Bajali does not have sanction/retention. 3. An application for compassionate appointment is made for any available vacant post, to which the particular applicant may be suitable and in order to recommend for the compassionate appointment, an inter se comparison of the financial status of the various applicants is to be considered. From a reading of the reasons stated in the DLC meeting of 10.3.2015, it is noticed that such consideration was not given to the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. 4. Compassionate appointment applications are not made against any specific post nor such applications are made against the post, which may have fallen vacant due to the death of the concerned person. 5. In view of the above, it is directed that the applications for compassionate appointment of the petitioner be again placed before the next available DLC, Barpeta for a fresh consideration strictly as per the law laid down by this court in Achyut Ranjan Das v. State of Assam, 2006 (4) GLT 674 and Faziron Nesssa v. State of Assam, 2010 (4) GLT 340. 6. It is clarified that this direction for a re-consideration shall not be construed to be a direction to recommend the candidate and the DLC shall evaluate the entitlement of the petitioner for a reconsideration by comparing his case with all other similar applicants on compassionate appointment. 7. Accordingly, it is directed that the application of the petitioner be placed before the next available DLC of Barpeta district. 7. Accordingly, it is directed that the application of the petitioner be placed before the next available DLC of Barpeta district. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.