Also heard Ms K. Devi v. Nos. 1

2. Considering the grievance raised and as prayed for by the learned counse l appearing for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admi ssion stage itself.

3. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondent authority to pay the arrear amount of ex-gratia i.e. Rs. 2 lacs for k illing of the husband of the petitioner by the extremists and to appoint the pet itioner in any Grade-IV post under the respondents as per the notification No. A BP.121/92/Pt-V/136 dated 22.06.2004.

4. The petitioner’s case in brief is that the petitioner is the wife of lat e Ram Bharat Singh who worked as a driver Lance Naik under the Commandant of 2nd APTF Battalion, Lumding, Nagaon. Her husband was kidnapped by the D.H.D. extrem ists on 14.12.2001 and the petitioner immediately reported the matter before th e Maibong Police Station, North Cachar Hills. Accordingly a case was registered as Maibong P.S. Case No. 32/2002 under section 364/34 IPC. The case was investig ated into but the whereabouts of the petitioner’s husband could not be traced ou t. In this connection, the SDO(C), Mybong submitted his report dated 01.02.2004 before the Deputy Commissioner, N.C. Hills, stating therein that the husband of the petitioner was kidnapped by the D.H.D. extremists thinking him to be a spy. He was killed inside the jungle and therefore his dead body could not be traced out.

5. In the above background, the learned counsel appearing for the petitione r has submitted that, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed in a Government job, as well as ex-gratia payment of Rs.3,00,000/- only as per Government notif ication No. ABP.181/91/65 dated 08.04.1992. But the same has been denied to her. Hence the instant petition with the aforesaid prayer.

6. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has bro ught to the notice of the court the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of th is Court in Dhaniswar Basumatary and Ors. -Vs-State of Assam and Ors. Reported i n 2010 (3) GLT 443 and submits that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the decisions rendered in Dhaniswar Basumatary (supra). Before coming to the controversy it is to be noted that Assam Public Se I have perused the aforesaid judgment (Dhaniswar Basumatary), relevant p

7. aragraphs 3, 4 and 5 whereof are quoted hereinbelow; (cid:28)3. rvices (Appointment of family members of persons killed by extremists/terrorists ) Rules, 1992 was promulgated under notification No. ABP.181/91/65 dated 08.04.1 992 observing that in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 30 9 of the Constitution of India, the Government of Assam was pleased to make the said rules regulating the appointment in public services under the Government of Assam of the next of kin of persons who had been killed in violent activities/i n the hands of the extremists since 1.1.1985. From a perusal of the said preambl e of the rules, it would clearly appear that the said rules were brought into force with a laudable object that kith and kin of the persons who died in the v iolent activities or in the hands of the extremists do not suffer unnecessarily . Rule 3 provided that the rules shall apply to all the services and posts under the Government of Assam, recruitment to which is made through the Commission or otherwise than through the Commission. Rule 4 provided that subject to the pro visions of the rules whenever only recruitment to services and posts in rule 3 w as made, only one affected candidate from one family who applied and was eligibl e (emphasis supplied) under the normal rules should be given appointment to a Go vernment job, or job under State Government undertaking/board. It is also to b e noted that on 29.07.1995 in partial modification of the Office Memorandum No. RR.82/90/6 dated 25.04.1991 relating to the sanction of ex-gratia to the next of kin killed in extremists/terrorists violence, the Government of Assam was pleas ed to formulate a policy with immediate effect to grant ex-gratia of Rs.1,00,000 /- to the next of kin of persons killed. However, it is to be noted that the Off ice Memorandum dated 29.07.1995 is not a part of the rules. The Office Memorandu m was independent of the rules and was to govern the cases where somebody had di ed in the extremists activities/terrorists violence. (cid:29) (cid:28)4. It appears that said 1992 rules were repealed by the State Government on 22. 06.2004 vide Notification No. ABP. 121/92/Pt-V/135 and by another Notification N o. ABP.121/92/Pt-V/136 of even date a policy was brought into existence observin g that in place of 1992 rules, the Government had decided to give relief to the affected families as provided under the said notification. (cid:29) (cid:28)5. The notification provided that a preference to the Members of the affected families in recruitments to the Government and semi-government jobs shall be giv en. Preference to such certified persons in selection of beneficiaries under sel f-employment generation scheme shall be given. The ex-gratia payment shall stand enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000/-. Alternative means of livelihood to families of ear ning victims of extremists violence shall be determined by the district authori ties after assessing the economic conditions of each family separately and free education to the children of the poor affected families till they become eligi ble to earn would be provided. & & & & & & & & (cid:29)

8. Coming to know about the aforesaid notifications issued by the Governmen t of Assam, after the submission of the report by the S.D.O., Mybong, the petiti oner submitted a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, N.C. Hills for p ayment of ex-gratia amount as well as her appointment in any Government service as she has no other source of income to maintain her family. However, the same e voked no response from the authority concerned. As the dead body of the petition er’s husband could not be traced out, therefore, on completion of seven (7) year s from the date of kidnapping of her husband on 14.12.2001, the petitioner aga in submitted a representation on 14.12.2008 before the Deputy Commissioner, N.C. Hills for payment of ex-gratia amount as well as for her appointment in Govern ment/Semi Government service as provided in the aforesaid notification. The aut hority thereafter sanctioned an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in her name as ex-gra tia amount but she was paid only Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 2011, whereas, as pe r 2004 notification the petitioner is entitled for an ex-gratia of Rs.3,00,000/- as well as appointment in Government/Semi Government service etc. Thus finding no other alternative, the petitioner has approached this court, ventilating her grievances by filing the instant writ petition. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Deputy Commis 9. sioner, Dima Hasao, Haflong contending inter alia that after receipt of the r equired particulars from the petitioner for sanctioning ex-gratia grant, propos al was submitted to the Government vide letter No. NCHG/D-244/2009-10/16 dated 12.05.2010. Government has sanctioned Rs. 1,00,000/-vide letter dated 19.05.2011 and the same has been paid to the petitioner, however, so far appointment in Go vernment service is concerned, as per record, no such representation has ever be en submitted by the petitioner.

10. In view of the specific statement made by the respondent No. 3 regardin g non-submission of application by the petitioner for appointment in any Governm ent/Semi Government job, it may be noted herein that this Court in Dhaniswar Ba sumatary (supra) has in such a situation held as thus, (cid:28)even if the petitioners have not made any application till date, they would be entitled to make applicat ion to the competent authority claiming indulgence of such authority for conside ration of their cases. (cid:29) Hence, in view of the above, the petitioner is at libert y to submit an application even at this stage for appointment in any Government/ Semi Government job as provided under the notification dated 22.06.2004, furthe r making it clear that, if the petitioner has not submitted any application til l date she may apply to the competent authority claiming for enhancement of ex- gratia amount also. Such application would be submitted before the respondent No . 3 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, North Cachar Hills, Haflong.

11. In case the petitioner submits application for appointment in any Govern ment/Semi Government job as well as for enhancement of ex-gratia amount, the r espondent No. 3 shall consider the applications so submitted by the petitioner w ithin a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the same. This Court ho pes and trusts that the respondent No. 3 would do the needful considering the me ntal agony and financial hardships faced by the petitioner. Needless to say that the respondent No. 3 would dispose of the representation by a speaking order an d the same would be communicated to the petitioner at her given address by regis tered post with A/D forthwith. If the petitioner is still aggrieved on the decis ion of the authority, she is at liberty to approach this court again.

12. e no order as to cost. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. However, there shall b