Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1222 (GAU)

RUPA MONI GOGOI DAS v. STATE OF ASSAM

2018-08-17

NELSON SAILO

body2018
JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. Heard Mr. P Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N Goswami, the learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5. Mr. DP Borah, the learned Standing counsel, Health Department appears for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. Considering the nature of grievance projected by the petitioner, the case is taken up for disposal with the consent of the parties. 3. The writ petitioner has approached this Court for the third time. Brief facts of the case is that the husband of the petitioner was employed as Grade-IV worker at Banmukh Public Mini Health Centre in the district of Sivasagar under the Health and Family Welfare Department. Unfortunately, while he was in service he expired in harness on 08.12.2010 after rendering about 22 years of service. The petitioner who is the wife of the late Government employee having faced severe financial crisis, submitted an application for compassionate appointment before the respondents concerned. Her application was forwarded by the Director of Health Services to the Deputy Commissioner of Sivasagar district on 14.07.2011 for placing the same before the District Level Committee (DLC). However, as no subsequent steps were taken by the authority concerned, the petitioner being aggrieved approached this Court by filing WP (C) No. 2957 of 2012. The writ petition was disposed of on 19.06.2012 with a direction to the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in terms of the guidelines formulated in the Achyat Ranjan Das vs- State of Assam & Ors., (2006) 4 GauLT 674 and other connected writ petitions within the time frame of two months. However, despite the direction, no steps were taken and therefore, the petitioner filed her second writ petition i.e. WP (C) No. 2141 of 2016. During the pendency of the writ petition, it transpired from the response made by the respondents that the case of the petitioner had been duly recommended by the DLC. Therefore, taking note of the recommendation made by the DLC, the writ petition was disposed on 18.05.2016 directing the DLC to place the case of the petitioner before the SLC at the earliest and within a time frame i.e. 60 days from the date of the order. 4. Consequently, the SLC held its meeting on 27.11.2015, wherein the case of the petitioner was amongst those which were considered. 4. Consequently, the SLC held its meeting on 27.11.2015, wherein the case of the petitioner was amongst those which were considered. However, the SLC came to the conclusion that since there was no post available and that two years had already lapsed since the date of the application, the case of the petitioner along with 78 others could not be considered for compassionate appointment and therefore, they were rejected. Pursuant to the decision of the SLC, a speaking order was passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department on 24.04.2017 (Annexure-IV). The petitioner being aggrieved has impugned the decision of the SLC and the speaking order dated 24.04.2017 by filing the present writ petition. 5. Mr. P Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted her application for compassionate appointment on time and the DLC in fact has recommended the petitioner in its meeting held on 13.03.2013 against the two vacancies in the Grade-IV post for the year 2010-2011. To substantiate his submission, learned counsel refers to paragraph-4 of the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent No. 5 on 25.08.2017. He submits that the petitioner after the death of her husband is facing acute financial crisis and she is presently working as a Helper to make both ends meet. Considering the vacancies for which she was recommended by the DLC, the SLC could not have taken the decision in the manner it had done. The learned counsel by further referring to the meeting minutes of the DLC held on 13.03.2013 at Serial No. 8 submits that one Ms. Ajanta Gogoi Bezbaruah was also recommended against 2(two) vacancies in the Grade-IV post for the year 2011-2012 and the SLC had recommended her for appointment in its meeting held on 27.11.2015. The petitioner likewise having been recommended by the DLC for the year 2011-2012 against the two vacancies in the Grade-IV post, the SLC ought to have given similar consideration and recommendation in favour of the petitioner as well. He thus submits that Court may interfere with the decision of the SLC by passing appropriate direction. 6. Mr. N Goswami, the learned State counsel submits that there were two vacancies available for the year 2010-2011 and therefore, the DLC recommended the petitioner against the vacancies. Mr. He thus submits that Court may interfere with the decision of the SLC by passing appropriate direction. 6. Mr. N Goswami, the learned State counsel submits that there were two vacancies available for the year 2010-2011 and therefore, the DLC recommended the petitioner against the vacancies. Mr. DP Borah, the learned Standing Counsel has a similar submission as well and submits that considering the facts and circumstances, Court may pass appropriate orders as it may deems fit. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. There is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner had timely submitted her application for compassionate appointment. There is also no dispute as regards the vacancy position for the year 2010-2011 i.e. there were two vacant posts of Grade-IV for that year. However, when the SLC met on 27.11.2015, a view was taken that there was no vacancy available and that two years have lapsed from the date of submission of the application and therefore, the petitioner was rejected on these two grounds. A perusal of the speaking order dated 24.04.2017 would indicate that no recommendation has been made in favour of any candidate for the year 2010-2011 while on 13.03.2013, the DLC had duly recommended the petitioner against the two vacancies available for that year. As may be noticed, one Ms. Ajanta Gogoi Bezbaruah was recommended for a Grade-IV post by the SLC against two vacancies available for the year 2011-2012. Therefore, having regard to the recommendation of the DLC and the manner in which the SLC had taken the decision, I am of the considered view that the SLC could not have rejected the case of the petitioner on the two grounds as earlier mentioned. The delay in holding the SLC meeting is not attributable to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner duly submitted her application on time and the DLC made its recommendation in her favour on 13.03.2013 as per the available vacancies. In that view of the matter, the decision of the SLC in its meeting held on 27.11.2015 and the subsequent speaking order dated 24.04.2017 in so far as the writ petitioner is concerned is not sustainable and the same stands interfered with. 8. In that view of the matter, the decision of the SLC in its meeting held on 27.11.2015 and the subsequent speaking order dated 24.04.2017 in so far as the writ petitioner is concerned is not sustainable and the same stands interfered with. 8. In the result, the SLC (respondent No.2) is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in its next sitting in terms of the recommendation made by the DLC vide its meeting minutes dated 13.03.2013. To enable the SLC make such consideration, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order forwarded all the requisite materials and particulars including the meeting minutes of the DLC dated 13.03.2013 to the respondent No. 2. The respondent No.2 on receipt of the same shall place the case of the petitioner in the next sitting of the SLC for consideration. 9. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands accordingly allowed. No costs.