Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1116 (GAU)

Samindra Nath Kalita v. State of Assam

2018-07-27

NELSON SAILO

body2018
JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.K. Sarmah, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, the learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 and 7 and Ms. M. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioners are surrendered militants who have joined back the main stream on 04.04.2000, 01.03.2000 and 04.04.2000 respectively. Upon joining the main stream, they sought for rehabilitation by submitting applications for employment under the Public Works Department of the State Government. It may be noticed that the applications submitted by the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 were forwarded to the State Government in the Public Works Department by the Additional Chief Engineer (Planning) Public Works Department vide communication dated 30.05.2008 and dated _ January, 2001 respectively. While the applications submitted by the petitioners were not favourably considered, similarly situated persons were considered and appointed either to the Grade-III or Grade-IV posts under the Public Works Department. The petitioners having come to learn about the same have sought for similar benefit by filing the present writ petition. 3. It is an admitted position that a scheme has been formulated by the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs laying down the criteria and the reliefs that can be granted to surrendered militants. This can be noticed from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 7 on 17.05.2016 and thereafter, on 15.03.2017. The 2 (two) affidavits disclose that the writ petitioners after they surrendered were paid Rs. 2,000/- each for 12 months while they were staying in designated camps as per the scheme of surrender-cum-rehabilitation. The revised scheme for surrender-cum-rehabilitation of militants in the North-East issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India which is a part of the Government of India's letter No. 11011/66/98-NEIV dated 10.05.2005 has been annexed by the respondent No. 7 in the affidavit-in-opposition dated 15.03.2017. The revised scheme is said to have come into effect from 01.04.2005. 4. Likewise, Mr. The revised scheme is said to have come into effect from 01.04.2005. 4. Likewise, Mr. M.R. Adhikari, the learned State Counsel has also produced a communication dated 06.06.2018 written by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home and Political Department, enclosing the scheme for surrender-cum-rehabilitation militants in the North-East Therefore, what can be appreciated is that on surrendering, a militant will be entitled to the reliefs as formulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and implemented through the State Government concerned in the North-East region. Although, the respondent No. 7 has contended that the petitioners were given the benefits available during the relevant time, Mr. D.K. Sarmah, the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand submits that the petitioners did not receive such benefits and moreover, they did not stay in the rehabilitation camp as contended by the respondent No. 7. 5. Having regard to the fact that the availability of the rehabilitation scheme is not disputed by the respondents and at the same time considering the fact that similarly situated persons have been given the benefit of employment as was found to be appropriate, I am of the considered view that instead of keeping the writ petition pending any longer, the respondent authorities be directed to consider the case of the writ petitioners which of course will be in terms of the guidelines made in this regard. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents, more particularly to the respondent No. 7 to consider the case of the petitioners and grant them suitable relief and rehabilitation, keeping in mind the fact that they have joined the main stream with a hope to be re-settled and that similarly situated persons were given the benefit of employment. The petitioners by now are in the advanced age since their surrendered in the year 2000 and therefore, such consideration should be done as expeditiously as possible and if necessary by giving them the benefit of condonation of age as may be found necessary. 7. With above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.