Manash Jyoti Gogoi vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2815 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010050452020




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/1572/2020

         MANASH JYOTI GOGOI
         S/O LT. RUHIT GOGOI, VILL. HATIMURIA GAON, P.O. CHARINGIA
         PUKHURI, DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM PIN-785680



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
         REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FOREST DEPTT.
         DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

         2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HEAD OF
         FOREST FORCE
          REHABARI
          GUWAHATI
         ASSAM
          PIN-781008

         3:THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (T)
         ASSAM
          KACHARIGHAT
          GUWAHATI-781001

         4:THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
          O/O THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
         ASSAM
          REHABARI
          GUWAHATI-781001

         5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
          SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
          SIVASAGAR
         ASSA
                                                                                     Page No.# 2/4


Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. C BORUAH

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

                                            ORDER

11-11-2021 Heard Shri C. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri K.P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department.

Considering the subject matter in dispute and the stand taken by the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

The matter pertains to a claim by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

It is the case of the petitioner that his father Late Ruhit Gogoi was serving as Office Peon in the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Sivasagar. His father had unfortunately expired while in service on 28.03.2002. The petitioner has claimed that, thereafter, he had applied for appointment on compassionate ground as he was duly eligible.

As no discernible action was taken by the authorities, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 1163/2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide an order dated 20.03.2009 whereby direction was given to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the guidelines in a Judgment dated 03.08.2006 passed in a bunch of writ petitions, the lead case being Achyut Ranjan Das and Ors. vs. The State of Assam and Ors.

After the said direction, he had again approached the authorities. However, the authorities vide an order dated 05.03.2013 had declined to offer any appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner and had stated that the case of the petitioner would be forwarded to the Administrative Department Page No.# 3/4

for placing the same before the State Level Committee for consideration after receipt of the required information and documents from the petitioner.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was under the bona fide belief that all such information and documents would be placed by the Parent Department as those pertain to the services rendered by the father of the petitioner. However, as no action was taken, the petitioner had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by which information was sought for regarding appointments done in Grade-III and Grade-IV posts under compassionate ground from 2013 - 2014 to 2019 to 2020.

The said application was responded to by stating that the case of the petitioner was placed before the State Level Committee on 01.04.2015. However, till now, the petitioner has not been informed of the outcome of such consideration by the State Level Committee.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Baruah, submits that though the death of the father of the petitioner was in the year 2002, no fault can be attributed upon him for any delay. He further submits that in view of the order dated 20.03.2009 passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner namely WP(C) No. 1163/2009, the aspect of delay would not stand in the way for consideration of the case of the petitioner.

By drawing the attention of this Court to the information received under the R.T.I., the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in Grade-III, 139 nos. of appointments and in Grade-IV, 49 nos. of appointments were made under compassionate ground for the period 2013-14 and 2019-20. The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly prays for a direction for consideration of the case of the petitioner in the proper prospective and in lines of the earlier direction of this Court.

Shri K.P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department on the other hand submits that after about 2(two) decades, the question of compassionate appointment would not come as the very purpose and objective of such appointment is to overcome the immediate distress of the bereaved family. However, the learned Standing Counsel has fairly submitted that in terms Page No.# 4/4

of the earlier order of this Court, the case of the petitioner was indeed considered whereafter he was directed to produce certain documents which till now has not been done and for that reason, the consideration is still awaited.

By referring to the reply dated 19.11.2019 to the RTI application, Shri Pathak, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the reply to the query no. 2 is apparently fallacious as the reference has been made to the consideration order being O.O. 165 dated 05.03.2013 which has no reference to the case of the petitioner being placed or considered by the State Level Committee.

The learned Standing Counsel, however, fairly submits that if the documents as indicated in the order dated 05.03.2013 are submitted by the petitioner, his case claimed for appointment on compassionate ground can be dealt with in the proper prospective.

At this juncture, Shri Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would submit all the necessary documents within a period of 3 (three) weeks from today along with a representation and a copy of this order whereafter, the same would be considered and placed before the appropriate authority for consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

It is made clear that consideration has to be on merits as on when a vacancy arises and there cannot be any rejection on the ground of lack of vacancies.

The exercise as directed above be undertaken expeditiously and preferably in the next meeting of appropriate authority.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant