Gauhati High Court
Guna Kanta Bharali vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 2 January, 2023
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010264962022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/8383/2022
GUNA KANTA BHARALI
S/O- LATE BHULA BHARALI,
VILLAGE- GHANHI GAON,
P.O.- GHILAMARA, PIN- 787053,
DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM,
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT.,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
(SLC)
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT.
ASSAM
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI- 781006.
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT LEVEL
COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
LAKHIMPUR
NORTH LAKHIMPUR
Page No.# 2/3
PIN- 787001.
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHE)
GHILAMARA DIVISION
GHILAMARA
DIST. LAKHIMPUR
PIN- 787053
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B CHANDA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
O R D E R
02.01.2023
Heard Mr. B Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. SM Hasan,
learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 3 and 5 being the authorities in the
PHED and Mr. A Chakraborty, learned Junior Government Advocate for the
respondents No. 2 and 4 respectively being the Chief Secretary to the
Government of Assam and the Deputy Commissioner, North Lakhimpur.
2. The father of the petitioner Bhula Bharali, who was a Muster Roll labourer
in the office of the Executive Engineer, PHED, North Lakhimpur, died in harness
on 02.06.1998 and on his death, the mother of the petitioner submitted an
application on 25.06.1998 for compassionate appointment either for herself or
for the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner was a minor when the said
application was made.
3. The application was considered by the DLC of Lakhimpur district in its
meeting of 28.12.2021, but stood rejected by providing that at the time when
Page No.# 3/3
the application was made, the petitioner was a minor.
4. In paragraph 19 of its judgment in N.C Santosh -vs- State of
Karnataka and others, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had provided that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration
should be the basis and not the norms when the application was made.
5. From such point of view, admittedly the petitioner was not a minor when
the application was considered on 28.12.2021. In view of such aberration of
law, the rejection of the DLC in its meeting of 28.12.2021 rejecting the
application of the petitioner is set aside and the matter stands remanded back
to the DLC of Lakhimpur district for a fresh consideration as per law. It is also
noticed that the father of the petitioner was a Muster Roll labourer and the DLC
to also take note of the said aspect as to whether any compassionate
appointment is applicable in respect of a Muster Roll labourer.
6. We clarify that we are not indicating in any manner that the petitioner is
entitled for a recommendation, but what we indicate is that it ought not have
rejected on the ground of being under age on the date when the application
was made, but it is for the DLC to consider the application on its own merit and
strictly as per law. Accordingly, the application of the petitioner be now placed
before the next available DLC of Lakhimpur district for a fresh consideration.
The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
