Gauhati High Court
Ritu Raj Chetia vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 1 December, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010212722021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7059/2021
RITU RAJ CHETIA
S/O LATE NOMAL CHETIA, R/O VILL- MELENGIAL GAON, P.O- BOR AHOM,
P.S- PULIBOR, DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ASSAM
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007
3:THE ASSTT. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (W AND S)
ASSAM
GUWAHATI
4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC)
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN
KARIMGANJ
5:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
Page No.# 2/4
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KARIMGANJ DISTRICT
7:THE COMMANDANT
15 A.P.B.N. (IR) EARL GAOL
KARIMGAN
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BORAH
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
01.12.2022
Heard Mr. D Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. JK
Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The father of the petitioner who was serving as an ABSI (Sub-Inspector)
under the Commandant of 15 APBN (IR) Earligool Karimganj died in harness on
05.09.2009 and on his death the petitioner submitted an application for
compassionate appointment on 10.08.2010. When the application was placed
before the DLC of Karimganj district on 30.01.2012, it stood rejected. Being
aggrieved the petitioner instituted WP(C)No.7607/2017 which was given a final
consideration by the order dated 11.03.2019 requiring the application of the
petitioner to be again placed before the DLC of Karimganj district for passing of
Page No.# 3/4
a reasoned order. When the application was placed, the petitioner was
recommended for a post of Grade IV.
3. In the circumstance, this writ petition is instituted with the grievance that
the recommendation made by the DLC in its meeting dated 22.08.2019 was not
placed before the SLC. In the circumstance, we required Mr. JK Goswami,
learned Additional Senior Government Advocate to inform the Court as to
whether the recommendation of the DLC made in favour of the petitioner was
placed before the SLC. The information provided is that it was placed in the
meeting of the SLC dated 10.02.2022, but the claim of the petitioner was
rejected by providing "rejected as per the OM for balance of service", inasmuch
as, the balance of service of the deceased employee was 9 months 25 days
when he died.
4. We have taken note that the requirement of having a balance service of
three years was introduced by the OM dated 01.06.2015 from such point of
view, the SLC may have been right. But we have taken note that the Supreme
Court in its judgment rendered in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs.
Ashish Awasthi and Another reported in (2022) 2 SCC 157 had provided that in
case of compassionate appointment the scheme prevailing on the date of death
of the employee would govern the claim. In the instant case, as on the date of
death of the deceased employee the scheme prevailing did not provide for a
balance of three years of service to remain, accordingly it would be
inappropriate to reject the claim of the petitioner by referring to a subsequent
OM dated 01.06.2015. In the circumstance, the matter stands remanded back
to the SLC for a fresh consideration of the claim of the petitioner for
Page No.# 4/4
compassionate appointment as per law.
5. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
