Afsar Hussain Laskar vs The State Level Committee (Slc) ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3312 Gua

                                                                      Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010059812020




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

                               Case No. : WP(C)/1915/2020

            AFSAR HUSSAIN LASKAR
            S/O LT. ABDUL HAQUE LASKAR, R/O VILL. BANSKANDI PART-II, P.O.
            BANSKANDI, P.S. LAKHIPUR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) FOR COMPASSIONATE
            APPOINTMENT AND 3 ORS.
            ASSAM (TO BE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO
            THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6)

            2:THE COMMISSIONER
             PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. PANJABARI
             JURIPAR
             GUWAHATI-37

            3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN OF THE DISTRICT
            LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC)
             CACHAR
            ASSAM

            4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO)
             CACHAR ZILLA PARISHAD
             DIST. CACHAR
             SILCHAR
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S ROY

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

Page No.# 2/4

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

Date : 06-12-2021

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. MH Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. TC Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 3 being the Chief Secretary of the State of Assam and the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar as well as Mr. A Roy, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 4 being the authorities in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Government of Assam.

2. The father of the petitioner Abdul Haque Laskar, who was a LDA in the Lakhipur Anchalik Panchayat, died in harness on 10.01.2010 and on his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 27.02.2010.

3. Admittedly, the said application for compassionate appointment was made within the prescribed time of one year from the date of death. The application of the petitioner for compassionate was considered by the DLC of Cachar district in its meeting of 04.10.2018. We specifically take note that although the application is of the year 2010 and it was incumbent upon the DLC to have taken it up in the year 2010 or near about, but for reasons unknown, it was kept pending for almost eight years and it was ultimately taken up on 04.10.2018. The DLC examined the vacancy position and arrived at its conclusion that the total cadre strength of Grade-IV is 197 and therefore 5% thereof would be 9.85 i.e. rounded to 10 number of posts. It also arrived at its conclusion that out of the 10 posts, four recommendations had already been Page No.# 3/4

made and therefore, 06 (six) posts are still available for compassionate appointment.

4. The DLC also took note that although the case of the petitioner was taken up in the earlier meetings of the DLC, but the same could not be progressed further inasmuch as, the representatives of the Chief Executive Officer, Cachar Zila Parishad remained absent in spite of being duly notified. Accordingly, the DLC was of the view that on the given day when the application was considered, the members including the Chief Executive Officer, Cachar Zila Parishad was present. In the presence of the Chief Executive Officer, the DLC had formed an opinion that the petitioner should not be deprived due to lapses on the part of the officials. In other words, the DLC took an equitable view that although, otherwise, the application of the petitioner ought to have been considered in the year 2010 or near about, but the same could not be done because of the lapses on the part of the officials concerned and accordingly, in order to mitigate the situation, had recommended the petitioner against one of the six vacant posts that were available for Grade-IV appointment on compassionate ground.

5. When the said recommendation was placed before the SLC in its meeting of 15.02.2019, the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner stood rejected by providing the ground that vacancies of the year 2010.12 for Grade- IV were not available.

6. We have already noticed that the DLC had taken an equitable view on the claim of the petitioner that he should not suffer due to the lapses on the part of the official and therefore, he was recommended against a vacancy other than a vacancy of the year 2010.12. It being so, a perfunctory rejection by the SLC on the ground of vacancies of the year 2010.12 being not available appears to us Page No.# 4/4

to be an arbitrary consideration. Accordingly, the rejection by the SLC stands interfered.

7. The matter is remanded back to be placed in the next available SLC to consider the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner by the DLC of Cachar in its meeting of 04.10.2018 in its proper perspective.

8. It is pointed out by Mr. A Roy, learned counsel for the Panchayat and Rural Development Department that in the event in the meantime vacancies identified have been used up in any other manner, as there is a deprivation to the petitioner without there being any fault of his, he may be considered against the vacancy available in any other department as provided in the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015.

The writ petition stands allowed as indicated above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant