Case No. : Wp(C)/5739/2015 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2218 Gua

                                                                          Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010178532015




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

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/5739/2015
            GAUTOM BORO
            S/O- LT. SONESWAR BORO, R/O VILL.- BALAIBIL, P.O. and P.S.-
            CHANGSARI, DIST.- KAMRUP R, ASSAM.

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
            REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
            FINANCE ESTABLISHMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY- 6.

            2:OFFICER-ON-SPECIAL DUTY
             FINANCE DEPTT.
             ESTABLISHMENT-B
             DISPUR
             GHY- 6
            ASSAM.

            3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
             KAMRUP M
             GHY- 1
            ASSAM.

            4:THE TREASURY OFFICER
             KAMRUP M DIST. TREASURY
             GHY- 1
            ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS.R SARKAR

Advocate for the Respondent : MRSA VERMA


                                   BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

                                          ORDER

Page No.# 2/4

Date : 15-09-2021

Heard Mr. B.P. Sinha, leaned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Bora, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 and Mr. B Gogoi, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4.

2. Inaction on the part of the State respondents to communicate the decision of the DLC meeting held on 11.07.2007 to the petitioner appears to have compelled the petitioner to file this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The case of the petitioner is that his father while working as Accountant in the Grade-IV post in the Office of the Sub Treasury Rangia had died-in-harness on 26.10.2001. Accordingly, the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 18.07.2005. The claim of the petitioner was rejected in the DLC meeting held on 11.07.2007. Not only the Court presumes that the said decision was not conveyed to the petitioner but it also appears that the Finance (Establishment-B) Department was also not conveyed of such decision and that the DLC also did not maintain records properly and accordingly, the DLC had once again taken up the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in its meeting held on 04.06.2015. The proposal of the petitioner was again rejected on the ground that the application had lapsed.

4. The writ petitioner has challenged the minutes of the DLC held on 04.06.2015 by filing this writ petition under Article Page No.# 3/4

226 of the Constitution of India. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner on behalf of respondent No.3, it was disclosed that the proposal of the petitioner was placed in the DLC meeting held in the year 2007, however, no document had been annexed to the said affidavit-in- opposition. As per the order dated 20.01.2021 passed by this Court, it appears that the minutes of the DLC held on 11.07.2007 was placed on record by the learned State counsel.

5. The sequence of the events narrated above shows that the authorities/officials of the State respondents, while dealing with the matter relating to compassionate appointment had utterly failed to show some compassion. The state respondents were under an obligation to act in accordance with the ratio laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das and Ors. v. State of Assam reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674, to hold the DLC meetings timely and to communicate the decision to the petitioner, but the State respondents have failed to hold the DLC meetings within the timeline directed by the said judgment rendered in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra). The DLC having rejected the candidature of the petitioner in its meeting held on 11.07.2007, had once again had taken up the claim in the DLC meeting held on 04.06.2015, which squarely reflects that the respondent No.3 i.e., the affairs of the DLC of Kamrup (Metro) District is totally mismanaged, compelling the petitioner to wait for the result of his application filed for compassionate appointment on 18.07.2005 for about 10 years, and this writ petition was filed on 14.09.2015.

Page No.# 4/4

6. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition on merit as the candidature of the petitioner had been rejected twice in DLC meeting held on 11.07.2007 and 04.06.2015, and that both the said orders are not under challenge. However, as the DLC Kamrup (Metro) district had failed to hold its meeting once in two months in terms of directions contained in the Court of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra), and specifically not communicating the order to the petitioner, the Court is inclined to impose compensatory cost to the petitioner for allowing uncertainty to prevail for nearly 10 (ten) years till DLC meeting was held on 04.06.2015.

7. The compensation to the petitioner is assessed at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and the said amount shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall provide his bank account to the respondent No.3 while serving a copy of this order to the office of respondent No.3.

8. On the prayer made by the learned Government Advocate, the enforcement of this order shall stand deferred for a period of 4 (four) weeks from today.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant