Johirul Islam Barbhuiya vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1506 Gua

                                                                      Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010216632019




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/6679/2019

            JOHIRUL ISLAM BARBHUIYA
            S/O LT. ABDUL KHALIQUE BARBHUIY, VILL. ALGAPUR PART-IV, P.O.
            KALIBARI BAZAR, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM,PIN-788150



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
            REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
            HOME AND POLITICAL DEPTT. DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

            2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
            ASSAM
             B.K.KAKOTY ROAD
             ULUBARI
             GUWAHATI-7

            3:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
             REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
             HAILAKANDI
             P.O. P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI
            ASSAM
             PIN-788151

            4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
             HAILAKANDI
             P.O. P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI
            ASSAM
             PIN-78815

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. N H BARBHUIYA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/3




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                           ORDER

Date : 22-04-2021

No one appears for the petitioner on call. Mr. D. Nath, learned Government Advocate

appears for the respondents.

2. The petitioner's case is that his father, who was serving as a Duftry (Grade-IV) in the

office of the Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi died in harness on 03.05.2015. The

petitioner thereafter filed an application for compassionate appointment on 17.06.2015. The

respondent No. 4, instead of forwarding the petitioner's application for compassionate

appointment to the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi for placing it before the DLC, rejected

the petitioner's application on the ground that the petitioner's father had only 2 years 8

months and 28 days of service left at the time he expired, i.e., on 03.05.2015.

3. The respondent No. 4, thus rejected the petitioner's application for compassionate

appointment on the ground that the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, issued by the

Government of Assam required the expired Government servant to have a minimum balance

of 3 years of service at the time he expired. The petitioner thereafter made a challenge to the

rejection of his application vide WP(C) No. 1614/2019.

4. This Court, vide Order dated 13.03.2019 disposed of WP(C) No. 1614/2019, by

directing the respondents to place the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment

before the concerned DLC for consideration on merits. Subsequent to the above, the DLC

considered the petitioner's application and rejected the petitioner's application, vide its Page No.# 3/3

Meeting Minutes dated 13.06.2019, on the ground that the petitioner's father did not have

the minimum balance of 3 years of service at the time of his death and that in terms of the

Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, the petitioner's application could not be considered

due to the above reason.

5. On considering the reason given by the DLC, for rejection of the petitioner's application

vide its Meeting Minutes dated 13.06.2019, this Court is reminded of the judgment of this

Court passed in Ahid Ahmed Majumdar Vs. State of Assam & Ors ., reported in 2019 (4) GLT

812 wherein, it has been held that the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 could only be

applied prospectively and only if the death of the Government servant occurred on or after

01.06.2015. As the petitioner's father had expired on 03.05.2015, the Office Memorandum

dated 01.06.2015 could not have been applied by the DLC for rejecting the petitioner's

application for compassionate appointment.

6. In view of the above reasons, the DLC Meeting Minutes dated 13.06.2019, in so far as

it relates to the petitioner, being unsustainable is set aside. Consequently, the respondents

are directed to place the petitioner's application before the respondent No. 3 again for

consideration on merit. The DLC should consider the petitioner's application in it's next

meeting and preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant