Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 640 (GAU)

Md. Moynul Hoque v. State of Assam

2019-05-22

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, Mr. M Shelim, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SP Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel, Elementary Education Department and Mr. SR Barua, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. The father of the petitioner, Late Eunusar Rahman served as a Grade IV employee in the Azitulla Public Higher Secondary School, Kakripara in Dhubri district and he died in harness on 21.12.2014. Upon his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 28.07.2015. As the said application was not given its consideration, the petitioner preferred WP(C)No.7048/2015, wherein the order dated 21.11.2015 was passed directing the Inspector of Schools, Dhubri to place the claim of the petitioner before the District Level Committee, (for short, DLC) Dhubri. 3. Thereupon by the minutes of the DLC meeting dated 26.05.2016, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the deceased person did not have a balance of minimum 3(three) years of service as required by the Government Office Memorandum No.ABP50/2006/Pt./182 dated 01.06.2015. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is preferred. 4. Mr. M Shelim, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment and order of this Court dated 20.12.2017 passed in WP(C)No.1514/2017. By the said judgment, while adjudicating upon the implication of the Government Office Memorandum No.ABP50/2006/Pt./182 dated 01.06.2015, it was held that in the event, the concerned person dies prior to the date of the said Office Memorandum i.e. 01.06.2015, the embargo imposed therein that the deceased would require to have atleast 3 (three) years of service left would not be applicable. 5. In paragraph 16 of the said judgment and order, it was held as follows: 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that a similar view, as in the case of Samarjyoti Medhi (Supra), is called for even in the present case since this is also a case where the right of the petitioner is being sought to be defeated by taking shelter under a changed policy decision which was not in existence on the date of accrual of the right. 6. We have taken note of that in the judgment and order dated 20.12.2017, it was also a consideration that the petitioner therein had earlier approached this Court at a stage when the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 was in existence. 6. We have taken note of that in the judgment and order dated 20.12.2017, it was also a consideration that the petitioner therein had earlier approached this Court at a stage when the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 was in existence. But as the State respondent authorities had not raised an objection in the said proceeding as regards the requirement of atleast 3(three) years service and, therefore, when the matter was remanded back, the claim could not have been rejected on the said grounds. 7. In the instant case also, we find that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by way of WP(C)No.7048/2015 which was disposed of by the order dated 21.11.2015 meaning thereby that the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 was in force when the writ petition was given its consideration. But the order dated 21.11.2015 does not reveal that any such objection was raised by the State respondents while the WP(C)No.7048/2015 was given its consideration. 8. From the said aspect also the present petitioner is similarly circumstanced as that of the writ petitioner in WP(C)No.1514/2017. As the matter had already been settled, we, accordingly, set aside the rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the DLC Dhubri in its meeting dated 26.05.2016 by which the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected for the reasons that the concerned deceased person had less than 3(three) years of his service left. 9. Upon the rejection of the petitioners claim being interfered, the matter now stands remanded back to the DLC Dhubri for a fresh consideration on the claim of the petitioner as per law. 10. The Inspector of Schools, Dhubri shall accordingly place the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment before the next available DLC for compassionate appointment of the Dhubri district. 11. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.