Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1690 (GAU)

Prabhat Ch. Bora v. State of Assam

2018-12-04

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department. 2. All the petitioners herein were appointed on compassionate ground as per their respective orders of appointment, which are annexed as Annexure-A series to the writ petition. The appointments were invariably made sometime between the years 1995 and 2001. All the appointment letters specifically state that the appointments were on compassionate ground and that they would be entitled to a stipend of Rs.900/- per month or as determined by the Government from time to time and thereafter be sent for a Basic Elementary Training course. It is further stated that during the training period, the appointees will be paid the monthly stipend of Rs.900/-. 3. The appointment letters give the indication that upon successful completion of the Basic Elementary Training course, they will be paid the regular scale of pay. It is stated that in fact, all the petitioners having successfully completed the Basic Elementary Training Course are being paid the regular scale of pay. In this writ petition, by relying upon a subsequent order of the authorities dated 13.05.2010 when compassionate appointments were given to some other persons as Assistant Teachers, a regular scale of pay was paid from the day one. By referring to the said Office Memorandum, the petitioners seek to make out a case of discrimination to the extent that some similarly situated persons were given the scale of pay from the day one even though they were appointed on compassionate ground, but in case of the petitioners, they were initially paid a stipend of Rs.900/- per month and only upon completion of the Basic Elementary Training Course, they were paid the regular scale of pay. 4. Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department refers to the affidavit in opposition of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam wherein in paragraph-6 it is stated that the Government of Assam in the Elementary Education Department had issued an Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2004, which provides that in respect of compassionate appointment also, the regular scale of pay would be paid to the concerned candidates from the date of initial appointment. In the affidavit, it is also stated that the provision of the Office Memorandum of 05.07.2004 would be prospective in nature. In the affidavit, it is also stated that the provision of the Office Memorandum of 05.07.2004 would be prospective in nature. Accordingly, it is the contention of the respondent authorities that the petitioners having been appointed prior to 05.07.2004, they are not covered by the Office Memorandum. 5. In view of such stand of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam by relying on the Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2004, the Court is of the view that the case for discrimination being sought to be made out by the petitioners by referring to a subsequent appointment order dated 13.05.2010 would be inapplicable in the present case. Further, it is also taken note of that as the petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground, the very basis for such appointment is to enable the concerned persons to overcome the immediate financial hardship being caused by the death of the bread earner of the family. If the petitioners could successfully overcome the financial difficulties at the time when they were appointed by receiving the amount of Rs.900/- per month, the Court see no reason as to why at this stage after a period of fifteen years, a claim can be entertained that they ought to have been paid the regular scale of pay. 6. For both the aforesaid reasons, the Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.