Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 196 (GAU)

NILIMA BEGUM v. STATE OF ASSAM

2018-02-01

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel for the Health Department Ms. D. Bora appears for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4. Mr. N. Goswami, the learned Government Advocate, represents the respondent No.3. 2. The petitioners husband Md. Samsul Haque died-in-harness on 4.5.2009 while serving as LDA in the establishment of the Addl. Chief Medical Health Officer (F.W) , Nalbari. The eligible widow of the deceased then applied for compassionate appointment on 22.5.2009 (Annexure-2). Her claim was considered by the District Level Committee (DLC), Nalbari. But the DLC in their deliberations made on 3.12.2009 (Annexure-6) noted that compassionate appointment is limited to 5% quota of the vacancies and only two posts are available. On this basis the claim of the petitioner was negated by the DLC. 3. Assailing the rejection of the claim by the DLC., the learned Counsel Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya submits that in 2013, 28 Grade-IV posts were available under the joint Director of Health Services and on this basis the negative decision of the DLC, is questioned by the Counsel. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submits that the available vacancies in the year of death of the Government employee, should only be taken into account but future vacancies cannot be considered for compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that since only 5% of the available posts are earmarked for compassionate category, unless necessary number of vacancies are available at the time of consideration, the departure from the normal mode of recruitment to Government jobs, cannot be made by the State to accommodate the compassionate category aspirants. 5. The petitioners husband died on 4.5.2009 and the application for compassionate appointment was made by the widow on 22.5.2009. Therefore, since only 5% quota of the vacancies is earmarked for the compassionate category, the vacancies that were available in the year 2009 are to be taken into account for considering the compassionate appointment. If this is the correct process, the negative decision taken by the DLC on 3.12.2009 for want of compassionate quota vacancies in the year 2009, cannot be faulted. 6. Moreover the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee, to tide over the sudden financial crisis and it is not intended to provide an avenue of employment. 6. Moreover the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee, to tide over the sudden financial crisis and it is not intended to provide an avenue of employment. The bread-earner in the present case had died on 4.5.2009 and therefore, after lapse of 10 years, a vested right for compassionate appointment cannot be claimed, by the aspirant (see Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 ). This ratio was recently approved by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Sima Banerjee (MANU/SCOR/00065/2017). Hence following the law declared by the Apex Court, it is clear that a direction for re-consideration of the case of the petitioner cannot now be granted. I find that her case was duly considered by the competent body on 3.12.2009 and thus no infirmity is seen in the impugned decision of the DLC. 7. In view of the above conclusion, this writ petition is dismissed as one devoid of merit.