Gauhati High Court
Paban Chetry vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 13 December, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010193592022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6271/2022
PABAN CHETRY
S/O- LT. GANGA BAHADUR CHETRY, R/O- VILL- GOPALPUR, P.S.
SAGARPUR, P.S. LALUK, DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 787023
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPTT.,
DISPUR, GHY-06
2:THE CHIEF SECRETARY CUM CHAIRMAN
THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE
DISPUR
GHY-06
3:THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (TAP)
ASSAM
ULUBARI
GHY-07
4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
LAKHIMPUR
DIST.- LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 787001
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
LAKHIMPUR
DIST.- LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 78700
Page No.# 2/4
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A KHANIKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Date : 13-12-2022
Heard Mr. A Khanikar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Dhar, learned
Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The father of the petitioner Ganga Bahadur Chetry who was working as an AB
Constable in the Assam Police in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur died in
harness on 28.12.2010 and on his death, the mother of the petitioner applied for
compassionate appointment on 21.01.2011. However, the said application remained
unattended. The petitioner after attaining the majority in the year 2018 made an application
for compassionate appointment on 10.12.2018. The said application was considered by the
DLC of Lakhimpur district in its meeting of 14.02.2019 and upon evaluating the existence of
vacancy in Grade-III for compassionate appointment, recommended the petitioner.
3. When the recommendation was placed before the SLC in its meeting of 10.02.2022, it
stood rejected by giving the reason 'late submission of application'. The reason given by the
learned counsel for the SLC for the rejection on late submission of application is that the
deceased died on 28.12.2010 whereas the application was made on 10.12.2018.
4. Mr. R Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents seeks
to oppose this writ petition by referring to the judgment of the Division Bench dated
09.12.2022 in WA No. 325/2021 wherein a conclusion was arrived at that if compassionate
appointment is made after a period of ten years, the same shall be de hors the very objects
of principles of die-in-harness scheme.
5. The Division Bench while arriving at its conclusion also referred to a judgment of the
Page No.# 3/4
Supreme Court in Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & ors. vs. Anusree K.B. in Civil
Appeal No. 6958/2022 wherein by referring to various laws laid down by the Supreme Court
in respect of compassionate appointment, particularly, Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, in paragraph 9 thereof, had held that the person concerned
therein shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her
father who died in the year 1995 and the application was made after a period of 24 years
from the death of the deceased employee.
6. The facts of the present case are at a variance to the extent that the father of the
petitioner died on 28.12.2010; on 21.01.2011, the mother of the petitioner made an
application for compassionate appointment which remained unattended at a time when the
petitioner was a minor and after attaining majority, the petitioner made his application on
10.12.2018. The facts of the present case appears to more similar to that of Syed Khadim
Hussain v. State of Bihar and others reported in (2016) 9 SCC 195 wherein in paragraph 1
thereof, it was taken note that after the death of an employee on 12.09.1991, the mother of
the applicant made an application for compassionate appointment on 02.04.1993 which was
rejected for the reason that it was not in a prescribed format. Thereupon, the applicant who
was aged 13 years 3 months 23 days at the time of the death, made an application for
compassionate appointment, after attaining the majority after a period of six years.
7. In the aforesaid circumstance, in paragraph 5 of the judgment in Syed Khadim Hussain
(supra), the Supreme Court held as extracted:
"5. We are unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the State. In the instant
case, the widow had applied for appointment within the prescribed period and without
assigning any reasons the same was rejected. When the appellant submitted the
application he was 13 years' old and the application was rejected after a period of six
years and that too without giving any reason and the reason given by the authorities
was incorrect as at the time of rejection of the application he must have crossed 18
years and he could have been very well considered for appointment. Of course, in the
rules framed by the State there is no specific provision as to what should be done in
case the dependants are minors and there would be any relaxation of age in case they
did not attain majority within the prescribed period for submitting application."
8. A reading of the afore-extracted provisions by the Supreme Court in paragraph 5 of
Syed Khadim Hussain (supra), it can be accepted that when an application is made by the
Page No.# 4/4
mother of a minor on time but the said application is not given its due consideration and
subsequently, the minor upon attaining majority makes an application, such application could
have well been considered by the authorities under the law.
9. In the instant case, as the factual situation under which the application of the
petitioner was made is more similar to that of the facts in Syed Khadim (supra), we follow the
proposition laid down therein and arrive at a conclusion that the rejection made by the SLC
on the ground of the application not having been made within one year of the death of the
deceased employee be unacceptable.
10. The matter stands remanded back to the SLC for a fresh consideration on the
recommendation made by the DLC of Lakhimpur district in its meeting of 14.02.2019 in
favour of the petitioner as per law.
11. We also take note that in the instant case the DLC had accepted the application
without rejecting it on the ground of any delay and the said aspect be also taken note of by
the SLC.
12. Mr. R Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents refers
to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in paragraph 3 of Sanjay Kumar v. the State of
Bihar & ors. wherein its is provided that there cannot be reservation of vacancy till such time
an applicant for compassionate appointment becomes major after numbers of years.
13. In the instant case, the issue of reserving a vacancy for the petitioner had not arisen
inasmuch as the DLC had identified a vacancy for the petitioner and accordingly,
recommended.
Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
