High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 597/2013 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN Heard Ms. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Nath, learned co unsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Facts of the case necessary for adjudication may be briefly noted. Petitioner’s father late Haridhan Deka was serving as Lat Mandal in the Circle Office under the Sarthebari Revenue Circle. He died in harness on 24.03.2 009. According to the petitioner, he had submitted an application seeking appoin tment on compassionate ground before the Circle Officer, Sarthebari Revenue Circ le on 30.04.2009.
Decision
As no decision was taken, petitioner had filed WP(C) No. 3112/2011 befor e this Court. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 24.08 .2011 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of three months. Thereafter, the District Level Committee (DLC) of Barpeta district held its meeting on 17.09.2011. In the said meeting, claim of the petitioner for appo intment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that petitioner did n ot apply within three months from the date of death of the Government servant an d that 2 (two) years had passed since filing of the application. On the other ha nd, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were recommended for appointment on compassionate gr ound. At that stage, petitioner again approached this Court by filing WP(C) No . 3026/2012 challenging the decision of the DLC dated 17.09.2011 rejecting his c laim. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 2 2.06.2012 quashing the decision of the DLC dated 17.09.2011 and directing fresh consideration of the case of the petitioner. Alleging non-compliance of such order of this Court, petitioner had file d a contempt petition and during the pendency of the contempt petition, when it was informed that DLC in its meeting held on 14.09.2012 considered the case of t he petitioner but rejected the same on the ground that two years had passed sinc e filing of the application and that there was no vacant post in Grade-IV, conte mpt petition was closed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge such decisio n before the appropriate forum. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed. This Court by order dated 08.02.2013 had directed issuance of notice to respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 only at that stage. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit. In paragraph 7 of the said affidavit, it is stated that case of the petitioner was again considered by the DLC in its meeting held on 14.09.2012. But petitioner’s case could not be r ecommended as two years had passed from the date of filing the application and t hat there is no vacant post of Grade-IV. An additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner wherein he has enclosed a letter dated 01.06.2013 issued by the office of the Deputy Commission er, Barpeta on information sought for by the petitioner under the Right to Infor mation Act, 2005.In the said letter, it is stated that a total number of 25 post s in Grade-IV are vacant in the amalgamated establishment of the Deputy Commissi oner, Barpeta. Compassionate appointment is based on compassion. But the manner in whic h the case of the petitioner has been dealt with displays anything but compassio n. This is really unfortunate. From the documents placed on record, it is seen that petitioner’s father died on 24.03.2009 while he was in service. In the letter of the Circle Officer dated 01.03.2012 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, it is clearly s tated that petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment submitted in h is office was forwarded to the office of the Deputy Commissioner on 04.05.2009, which was received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner vide central receipt No. 3015 dated 11.05.2009, which is well within three months from the date of d eath of the Government servant. This Court while passing the order dated 24.08.2 011 in WP(C) No. 3112/2011 took note of the said document and recorded in the or der about forwarding of petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment t o the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta on 04.05.2009. This fact has no t been questioned by any authority till date. In view of the aforesaid fact and position, rejection of the claim of th e petitioner by the DLC in its meeting held on 17.09.2011 on the ground that pet itioner’s application was not filed within three months from the date of death o f the Government servant appears to be contrary to the record. This Court by order dated 22.06.2012, while disposing of WP(C) No. 3026/ 2012, held such rejection of the case of the petitioner as not at all tenable an d directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner with all requi red earnestness. This Court also referred to the letter of the Circle Officer da ted 01.03.2012 and recorded that petitioner had filed the application within thr ee months of expiry of his father. In the meeting of the DLC held on 14.09.2012, the case of the petitioner was again rejected on the following two grounds- 1) 2) two years have been passed since the filing of application, there is no vacant post of Grade-IV staff. In so far the ground of expiry of two years is concerned, this ground wa s already dealt with in WP(C) No. 3026/2012 and this Court in its order dated 22 .06.2012 had clearly held the same to be not at all tenable. It was held that co nsideration within the period of two years was not in the hands of the petitione r. Regarding the ground that there is no vacant post of Grade-IV staff, vacancy position will have to be understood as on the date when the petitioner’s case wa s first considered and wrongly rejected on 17.09.2011. It appears from the recor d that while rejecting the case of the petitioner, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had b een recommended. Since the said respondents had been recommended for appointment on compassionate ground, I am of the view that it will not be equitable to exam ine such recommendation at this stage. But as per information furnished from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta as placed on record in the additiona l affidavit of the petitioner, there are 25 vacancies in Grade-IV. Since the petitioner was wrongly denied recommendation on 17.09.2011 whe n vacancies were available, it will not be open to the respondents to subsequent ly reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground of lack of vacancies. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that the DLC shall now recommend the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to the State Leve l Committee (SLC) so that the case of the petitioner can be considered by the SL C in its next meeting against any available Grade-IV vacancy. Consequential orde r(s) shall be passed following the decision of the SLC. Writ petition is allowed.