Lutfur Rahman Choudhury vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 85 Gua

                                                           Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010199592021




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

                        Case No. : WP(C)/7122/2021

         LUTFUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY
         S/O- LATE ABDUL JALIL CHOUDHURY
         R/O- VILLAGE NIZ VERNERPUR PART-II,
         P.O- VERNERPUR, P.S- LALA,
         DIST-HAILAKANDI
         PIN- 788163, ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
         OF ASSAM, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-06

         2:THE DIRECTOR
          OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
         ASSAM
          KAHILIPARA
          GUWAHATI-19

         3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
          HAILAKANDI

         PO AND PS- HAILAKANDI

         DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI
         ASSAM

         4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR
          OF SCHOOLS
          HAILAKANDI.
         P.O AND P.S- HAILAKANDI
                                                                       Page No.# 2/4

            DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI
            ASSAM

            5:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
             HAILAKANDI FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
             REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
             DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI.
            P.O AND P.S- HAILAKANDI
            DIST- HAILAKANDI
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS. S SEAL

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                 BEFORE
            HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

                                        JUDGMENT

Date : 07-01-2022

Heard Ms. S. Kanungo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 being the authorities under the Elementary Education Department of the Govt. of Assam and Mr. G. Pegu, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 being the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi.

2. The father of the petitioner Abdul Jalil Choudhury who was a Grade-IV employee in the Nizvernerpur M.E. Madrassa in the district Hailakandi died in harness on 07.10.2011 and on his death an application for compassionate appointment was submitted. The said application was given a consideration by the DLC, Hailakandi district in its meeting of 05.10.2021. In this respect, the Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman District Level Committee, Hailakandi passed an order dated 11.10.2021 by providing that as the remaining balance period of service of the deceased was 2 months 26 days, therefore, pursuant to the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 the claim of the petitioner was rejected for compassionate appointment.

Page No.# 3/4

3. Ms. S. Kanungo, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a contention that the father of the petitioner died on 07.10.2011 and immediately thereafter the application for compassionate appointment was made. The death of the deceased as well as the date of application are prior to the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 and therefore, the provision thereof that in the event the deceased had balance of service of less than 3 years, the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be accepted, would be inapplicable in the present case.

4. Ms. S. Kanungo, learned counsel refers to a judgment of this Court dated 20.12.2017 in WP(C) 1514/2017 wherein in paragarpah-12 thereof it has been held as extracted:-

"12. It is to be noted here-in that at the time of the death of the petitioner's father, Circular dated 20.12.2012 was holding the field whereunder, the dependent of the deceased government servant had the time of one year with effect from the death of the bread earner to submit the application seeking compassionate appointment. Petitioner' father died on 21.05.2015. Therefore, under the circular dated 20.12.2012, the petitioner was entitled to submit his application seeking compassionate appointment till 20.05.2016. The government Circular laying down the eligibility norms for submission of application for compassionate appointment, in the opinion of this court, vests a limited right on the applicant's to a apply for the same, which in this case was available to the writ petitioner till 20.12.2012. As such, the mere fact that the petitioner did not submit his application on a particular date cannot be a ground for the authorities to disqualify him on any criteria that was not in existence on the date on which the petitioner had acquired the eligibility to apply for such appointment under the scheme."

5. By referring to the said proposition laid down by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as in the instant case also the date of death of the father of the petitioner as well as the date of application were prior to the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, therefore, the restriction provided therein as regards the balance period of service to be more than 3 years would also be inapplicable in the present case and accordingly the reason for rejecting the Page No.# 4/4

application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment would also be unsustainable in law.

6. Mr. G. Pegu, learned counsel for the Deputy Commissioner as well as Mr. B. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondents in the Elementary Education Department submits that the issue involved has been decided by this Court in its judgment dated 20.12.2017 in WP(C) 1514/2017.

7. In the aforesaid circumstance, we interfere with the resolution of the DLC of Hailakandi dated 05.10.2021 rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that the deceased had balance period of service which was less than 3 years.

8. Accordingly, the matter stands remanded back to the DLC, Hailakandi for a fresh consideration as per law without insisting upon that the deceased had a balance period of service which was less than 3 years.

Writ petition stands allowed as indicated above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant