Gauhati High Court
Birkhang Brahma vs The Chief Secretary on 10 August, 2022
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010191802020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/121/2021
BIRKHANG BRAHMA
S/O LATE AJOY KR. BRAHMA
RESIDENT OF NORTH GHOSHKATA, PO BONORGAON, PS DOTMA, DIST
KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, 783347
VERSUS
THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
CHAIRMAN SLC, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT AND MEMBER SECRETARY STATE LEVEL
COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE
GROUND. DISPUR
GUWAHATI 6
3:THE STATE LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR GUWAHATI
6
4:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
DISPUR GUWAHATI 6
5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI 03
Page No.# 2/6
6:DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BTC
KOKRAJHAR
PO AND PS KOKRAJHAR
DIST KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
783370
7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CHAMPAMATI CANAL DIVISION (IRRIGATION) DHALIGAON
PO AND PS DHALIGAON
DIST KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM. 783337
8:THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL (B)
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-0
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
Linked Case : WP(C)/4590/2020
BIRKHANG BRAHMA
S/O- LT. AJOY KR. BRAHMA
R/O- NORTH GHOSHKATA
P.O. BONORGAON
P.S. DOTMA
DIST.- KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 783347
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY.
GOVT. OF ASSAM
(CHAIRMAN SLC)
DISPUR
GHY-6
Page No.# 3/6
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
IRRIGATION DEPTT. AND MEMBER SECY.
STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION FOR APPOINTMENT ON
COMPASSIONATE GROUND
DISPUR
GHY-6
3:THE STATE LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GHY-06
4:THE DY. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
IRRIGATION DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-06
5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION DEPTT.
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GHY-03
6:DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. BTC
KOKRAJHAR
P.O. AND P.S. KOKRAJHAR
DIST.- KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 783370
7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CHAMPAMATI CANAL DIVISION (IRRIGATION)
DHALIGAON
P.O. AND P.S. DHALIGAON
DIST.- KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 783337
------------
Page No.# 4/6
Advocate for : MR. A ROSHID
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 10-08-2022
Heard Mr. A Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
TC Chutia, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 3, Mr. SR
Rabha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 as well as Mr. N
Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 & 7.
The counsels for the parties submit that the 2 (two) writ petitions can be
disposed of by a common order.
The petitioner's grievance is that the petitioner's application for
compassionate appointment had been rejected vide State Level Committee
(SLC) meeting minutes dated 13.12.2017 and 06.08.2020.
The only issue raised by the petitioner and which has to be decided by this
Court is as to whether the guidelines for compassionate appointment operating
at the time of the death of the petitioner's father would have been taken into
consideration, while considering the petitioner's application for compassionate
appointment.
The petitioner's case is that the petitioner's father died-in-harness on
06.01.2013. Accordingly, the petitioner's application for compassionate
appointment should have been considered in terms of the guidelines operating
Page No.# 5/6
at the time of death of the petitioner's father, which in this case would have
been the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 01.10.2009 or any other guidelines
that might have been operating at the time of his father's death. However, the
petitioner's application for compassionate appointment had been considered in
terms of the later guidelines for appointment on compassionate grounds, vide
OM dated 01.06.2015.
The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner's application was
rejected in terms of Clause 14 (a)(iii) of the OM dated 01.06.2015. He submits
that the OM dated 01.06.2015 could not have been the basis for considering the
petitioner's application by the SLC. Accordingly, the SLC meeting minutes dated
13.12.2017 and 06.08.2020 should be set aside.
Mr. TC Chutia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 3 submits that
in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NC Santosh vs.
State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617, the SLC has
rightly considered the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment in
terms of the guidelines laid down in the OM dated 01.06.2015.
I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
In the case of NC Santosh (supra) the three judges Bench of the Apex
Court has held that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the
application, should be the basis for considering the claim for compassionate
appointment. In view of the decision of the three judges Bench of the Apex
Court, the norms provided in the OM dated 01.06.2015 was rightly considered
by the SLC, while considering the petitioner's application for compassionate
appointment.
Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity with the decision of the
Page No.# 6/6
SLC, in rejecting the petitioner's application on the basis of the norms/guidelines
laid down in the OM dated 01.06.2015 for considering applications for
appointment on compassionate ground.
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
