Gauhati High Court
Rina Barman Kalita vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 4 September, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010063812021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2510/2021
RINA BARMAN KALITA
W/O- LT. HARINATH KALITA, R/O- VILL AND P.O. HARIBHANGA, DIST.-
NALBARI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ASSAM
SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GHY-06
2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON
COMPASSIONATE GROUND
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
DISPUR
GHY-6
3:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPTT.
ASSAM SECRETARIAT
DISPUR
GHY-06
4:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GHY-19
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
NALBARI
P.O.
Page No.# 2/4
P.S. AND DIST.- NALBARI
ASSAM
6:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
NALBARI
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST.- NALBARI
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R PHUKAN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
JUDGMENT
Date : 04-09-2021
Heard Mr. R. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
G. Pegu, learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 and 5 being the
authorities in the Govt. of Assam through the Chief Secretary and Deputy
Commissioner, Nalbari and Mr. S.M.T. Chistie, learned counsel for the
respondents No.3, 4 and 6 being the authorities under the Secondary
Education Department of the Govt. of Assam.
2. The husband of the petitioner namely Late Harinath Kalita who was serving
as an Assistant Teacher (Science) in the Haribhanga High School, Nalbari, died
in harness on 24.01.2017 and on his death, the petitioner made an application
in the prescribed format for compassionate appointment on 03.02.2017.
Admittedly the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was
made within the prescribed time limit. The DLC of Nalbari district in its meeting
held on 21.03.2018 recommended the petitioner for appointment on
compassionate ground against the post of Grade-III (LDA) in the unreserved
category taking note of her educational qualification as well as her age of 45
years 9 months 22 days. The DLC had also identified a specific vacancy against
Page No.# 3/4
which the petitioner is to be appointed. When the recommendation of the DLC
was placed before the SLC in its meeting of 04.01.2021, the recommendation by
the DLC made in favour of the petitioner stood rejected by providing that the
petitioner was over aged at the time of her application. It was noted that the
petitioner was 44 years 8 months 25 days at the time when the application was
made, whereas, the upper age limit for government job for general candidate
was 40 years. Apparently, the SLC rejected the recommendation of the
petitioner on the sole ground that she was over aged when the application was
made. A question has arisen as to whether any upper age limit is applicable in
respect of compassionate appointment. The said question has been settled by
this Court in the judgment dated 24.08.2010 in WP(C) 2989/2010, wherein, it
has been specifically held that for the purpose of compassionate appointment,
there would not be any upper age limit. The said provision is made in
paragraph-7 of the judgment which is extracted below:-
" 7. That apart, which is more important looking at the policy behind the
scheme of compassionate appointment, the Office Memorandum dated 04.01.92
cannot be made applicable for compassionate appointment. The object of the
compassionate appointment scheme being to provide immediate succor to the
family of the deceased, if the concept of age bar applicable in the case of
normal direct recruitment is imported into the concept of compassionate
appointment, it is possible in many cases that the spouse of the deceased will
be overaged when a case for making compassionate appointment arises. For
example, if a deceased employee dies at the age of 55 years, leaving behind his
widow, who is 50 years old, by application of the Office Memorandum dated
04.01.92 she would not be entitled to get compassionate appointment also. In
my opinion, to accept the contention of the respondents-authorities in this
behalf will defeat the very object of providing immediate sucour to the
dependents of the deceased. The case history reveals that though the husband
of the deceased died in harness on 30.4.04, she was forced to run from pillar to
post to obtain the elusive relief of compassionate appointment. The respondent-
authorities ought to have been more sensitive to the plight of widows like the
petitioner, she was and is still chasing a mirage of compassionate appointment
Page No.# 4/4
even after the 6 years of the death of her husband. In the view that I have
taken, the petitioner has made out a clear case for interference of this Court. "
3. This Court had specifically held that if the contention of there being upper
age limit in respect of compassionate appointment is accepted, the same will
defeat the very object of providing immediate succor to the dependents of the
deceased in the form of compassionate appointment. Although Mr. G. Pegu,
learned counsel for the SLC refers to the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015
of the Department of Personnel, Govt. of Assam providing that a power is
vested on the SLC to relax the upper age limit, but we are of the view that even
such office memorandum is not required as there is an existing judicial
pronouncement, which had attained its finality that there would be no upper
age limit for the purpose of compassionate appointment.
4. Accordingly, the minute of the SLC dated 04.01.2021 in respect of the
petitioner whereby her claim for compassionate appointment was rejected for
being over aged is set aside.
5. The matter is now remanded back to the SLC to be considered in its next
meeting without taking note of the over age of the petitioner and to decide the
matter on its own merit under the law.
6. Writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
