Arup Jyoti Gogoi vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors. E
2022 Latest Caselaw 436 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010005342021




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

                            Case No. : WA/358/2021

         ARUP JYOTI GOGOI
         S/O- LATE GIRIDHAR GOGOI, R/O- VILL.- BHATEMORA GAON, P.S. AND
         DIST.- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785006.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. E
         REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
         ASSAM, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

         2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-06.

         3:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (I) TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
         WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-6.

         4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          JORHAT WATER RESOURCES DIVISION
          JORHAT
         ASSAM
          PIN- 785001.

         5:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
          REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN
         THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          JORHAT
         ASSAM
          PIN- 785001.
                                                                       Page No.# 2/4


             6:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE
              REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN
             THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
              DISPUR
              GUWAHATI-6.

             7:RUPAK RANJAN BORA
              S/O- LATE NABIN BORA
             VILL.- BAHANA
              P.O. BAHANA
              DIST.- JORHAT
             ASSAM
              PIN- 785001

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR H BEZBARUA

Advocate for the Respondent :

BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

Oral 09.02.2022

The matter is taken up through video conferencing.

Heard Mr. H. Bezbaruah, learned counsel for the writ appellant.

This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment & order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4525/2014, by which the learned Single Judge has rejected the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as against the private respondent No.7, who was given appointment on compassionate ground.

The material facts of the present case are that the father of the appellant/writ petitioner, who was working as a Section Assistant (Grade III) in Page No.# 3/4

the Office of the Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division, Jorhat, died in harness on 23.06.2005. After the death of his father, the appellant/writ petitioner applied for his appointment under the die-in-harness scheme on 12.01.2006. Thereafter, though the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner was rejected in the year 2007, he filed a writ petition only in the year 2013 when he came to know that the private respondent No.7 has been given appointment under the quota reserved for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme by making the private respondent No.7 a party. The comparative chart of the two was presented before the learned Single Judge, which reads as under:

Sl Details of the Applicant Economic status of the No A. Name: deceased family:-

B. Date of birth: A. Total members in the family C. Caste:

D. Date of Application: B. How many are employed in E. Father/husband's name Govt./Private Service C. Total landed property:- D. Total annual income from all sources including pension/ Gratuity etc:

3               Selected        A. 4(four) nos
                                B. Nil
     A. Sri Rupak Ranjan Bora   C. Not Known

B. 1-2-1985 1. Gratuity= Rs.1,41,000.00 C. O.B.C 2. Annual family pension = D. 28-9-04 Rs.60,000.00 E. Late Nobin Bora 3. Annual income from other (Father), S.A. sources = Rs.30,000.00

7 Non Selected A. 3(three) nos B. One member is employed in A. Sri Arup Jyoti Gogoi service B. 24-2-1978 C. Not Known C. OBC D.

D. 12-1-2006 1. Gratuity=1,37,942.00 E. Late Giridhor Gogoi 2. Annual family pension = Page No.# 4/4

(Father), Section Asstt. Rs.35,400.00

3. Annual income from other sources = Rs.56,400.00

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that it has been wrongly stated that one member of his family was employed in service. The elder brother of the appellant/writ petitioner had got appointment in ONGC only in the year 2013 and not in 2007. Even if we take this fact into consideration, the financial condition of both the appellant/writ petitioner and the private respondent No.7 was by and large the same. At this stage, when the private respondent No.7 has already been given appointment and is presently working for about nine years, it would not be proper for us to pass an order which is adverse to the private respondent No.7. In any case, as we have already referred above, the claims of Sri Arup Jyoti Gogoi, i.e. appellant/writ petitioner and Sri Rupak Ranjan Bora, i.e. the private respondent No.7, are by and large on the same level. Therefore, there is no scope for interference with the order of the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

                      JUDGE             CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant