THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
Case at a glance
- Bench
- LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 14
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU. B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR Page No.# 2/3 22-02-2023 Heard Mr. S. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned Government Advocate, Assam for Respondents No.1 and 3; and Mr. SMT Chistie, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department for Respondent No.2.
The father of the petitioner late Lakhya Nath Taid, while serving as Headmaster of Maghuchuk Kowaimari Janajati High School in the District of Lakhimpur, died-in-harness on 20.09.2015. The petitioner made an application within the specified period of time praying for appointment on compassionate ground. The District Level Committee in its meeting held on 16.02.2018 recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment as Junior Assistant, a Grade-III post. The State Level Committee in its meeting held on 4.1.2021, rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the remaining period of service of the deceased Government employee was less than two years.
This Court in W.P.(C) No.1646 of 2021 and other batch of writ petitions, by order passed on 30.01.2023, has struck-down Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 1.6.2015, whereby the dependent family members of a government employee who died-in-harness having less than minimum three years of service being not eligible for compassionate appointment, as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The reasons for rejection of the petitioner’s application by the State Page No.# 3/3 Level Committee in its meeting held on 4.1.2021, that the remaining period of service of the deceased government employee, therefore, has no force as Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 1.6.2015 has been struck down by this Court. The matter is, therefore, remanded back to the State Level Committee to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh in its immediate next sitting in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.