Gauhati High Court
Sathil Deka vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 2 August, 2023
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010262552022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/8170/2022
SATHIL DEKA
S/O- LATE LALIT CHANDRA DEKA,
VILLAGE- NAGAON (HATIMARA),
P.O.- DIPILA, DISTRICT- DARRANG (ASSAM),
PIN- 784125.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT,
CHANMARI, GUWAHATI-3.
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
FLOOD CONTROL DEPARTMENT (WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT)
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI- 3.
3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
E AND D DIVISION (WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT)
MANGALDOI DIVISION
DARRANG
PIN- 784125.
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
DARRANG
MANGALDOI
PIN- 784125
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. A J ATIA
Page No.# 2/5
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WATER RESOURCE
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 02.08.2023
Mr. A.J. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.M.
Das, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3; and Mr. T.C.
Chutia, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent
no.4.
2. The rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for appointment
on compassionate ground vide DLC meeting held on 31.05.2019 is under
challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that his father, who was
otherwise due to superannuate on 15.03.2000, was awarded invalid pension on
08.12.1999. It is projected that in terms of OM No. ABP.357/80/137 dated
09.09.1983, the petitioner became entitled to seek appointment on
compassionate ground in terms of the said OM and accordingly, application for
appointment on compassionate ground was submitted on 17.12.1999. The case
of the petitioner was considered by the DLC in its meeting held on 19.05.2007
by recommending the name of the petitioner along with others. However, the
SLC in its meeting held on 28.07.2008, rejected the case of the petitioner. The
aggrieved petitioner then moved this Court by filing WP(C) 4046/2009 and this
Court by order dated 26.10.2017, issued a direction upon the respondent
authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner as was considered for two
similarly situated persons. The said order was not complied with and therefore,
Page No.# 3/5
the petitioner had filed a contempt petition, which was registered as
Cont.Cas(C) No. 535/2018. During the pendency of the said contempt petition,
the case of the petitioner was placed before the DLC in its meeting held on
31.05.2019 and on consideration that the proposal of the petitioner was
rejected earlier by the DLC on 19.05.2007 and that 20 (twenty) years had
already lapsed, the claim of the petitioner was rejected, which is impugned in
the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment dated on 22.02.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
WA 348/2017 and it is submitted that in the said decision, this Court had held
that the non-consideration of the application for compassionate appointment of
the petitioner cannot be attributed to the concerned applicant and therefore, a
direction was issued to the concerned authorities to place the case of the
appellant therein before the SLC in its next meeting. Accordingly, it is submitted
that the delay in disposal of the application of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment cannot be attributed to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner
cannot be punished by non-consideration of his claim for compassionate
appointment due to inordinate delay on part of the respondent authorities to
dispose of the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
5. The learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate has opposed the
prayer made in this writ petition.
6. An objection is also raised on the point that the father of the
petitioner was otherwise due to superannuate on 15.03.2000, but he got an
invalid pension on 08.12.1999 and the petitioner had applied for compassionate
appointment in lieu of the post held by the father of the petitioner.
Page No.# 4/5
7. Be that as it may, in this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner
had submitted an application for being appointed on compassionate ground
purportedly on 17.12.1999. Therefore, as on date, the application of the
petitioner would be about 24 years old. This Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan
Das V. State of Assam, 2006 (4) GLT 674 : 2006 0 Supreme Gau 217, it has
been observed in sub-paragraph-X of paragraph-7 that if the applications of
eligible candidates remain pending and not considered due to want of vacancy
for a period of 2 (two) years from the date of making such application, all such
application would require no further consideration and must be understood to
have spent their force.
8. In this case, the father of the petitioner had superannuated on
invalid pension of 08.12.1999. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment must relate to a vacancy which existed during the
year 1999-2000. Under the scheme prevailing at that stage, only 5% of
vacancies could have been filled up by way of compassionate appointment
under the then prevailing OM dated 09.09.1983. There is no material available
before this Court that any vacancy relating to 5% vacancy for compassionate
appointment relatable to the year 1999-2000 is still available. Therefore, the
Court finds that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment
cannot be directed to be re-considered by the DLC on account of the fact that
vacancy relatable to the year 1999-2000 would not be available after lapse of 24
years.
9. Accordingly, the Court is disinclined to entertain this writ petition on
the ground that the claim of the petitioner is deemed to have been spent its
force after lapse of 24 years from the date of application and there is no
material available in this writ petition that the vacancy relatable to the year
Page No.# 5/5
1999-2000 under the 5% quota for compassionate appointment is still available.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
11. There shall be no order as to cost.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
