Manash Pratim Borah vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 5285 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Manash Pratim Borah vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 13 June, 2025

Author: Soumitra Saikia

Bench: Soumitra Saikia

                                                                  Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010045882025




                                                           undefined

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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/1950/2025

         MANASH PRATIM BORAH
         S/O- LATE PRABIN CH. BORAH, VILL- KOKAJAN SONARI GAON, P.O.
         KOKAJAN, P.S. TEOK, DIST. JORHAT, PIN- 785107, ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6,
         ASSAM

         2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
          ULUBARI
          GUWAHATI-7
         ASSAM

         3:THE CHAIRMAN
          STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE
         ASSAM

         4:THE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
          JORHAT
          DIST. JORHAT
         ASSAM

         5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
          JORHAT
          DIST. JORHAT
         ASSAM

         6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
          JORHAT
                                                                       Page No.# 2/7

             DIST. JORHAT
             ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S SINHA, MR. P KALITA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,




                                    BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

                                           ORDER

13.06.2025

Heard Mr. S. Sinha, learned counsel appears for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. U. Sarma, learned Junior Government Advocate appears for the respondent.

2. The petitioner before the Court seeks compassionate appointment following the death of his father, who was serving in the 3rd AP Battalion, Titabar, Jorhat, under the Government of Assam. Due to a medical condition, the petitioner's father was compelled to retire in 2011. He later passed away on 07.07.2022. The petitioner thereafter applied for compassionate appointment and his case was duly recommended by the District Level Committee (DLC) on 26.06.2014. However, the State Level Committee (SLC) rejected the application on 06.06.2017 on the grounds of late submission. Upon reviewing the case, it is evident that the petitioner's father was compulsorily retired in 2011 and passed away in 2022, but the SLC mistakenly recorded the date of death as 14.08.2009. Aggrieved by this error, the petitioner had previously approached the Court through WP(C)/7388/2019. However, the petition was withdrawn in view of the Supreme Court's Judgment in State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari (2023 SCC online SC 219). The petitioner now seeks a reconsideration of Page No.# 3/7

his case by the SLC, specifically requesting correction of the erroneous date of death, from 14.08.2009 to the actual date of 07.07.2022.

3. The petitioner further prays that a Coordinate Bench, in a batch of writ petitions led by WP(C)/342/2025, has already disposed of those matters with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners' cases without applying the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024. The petitioner, therefore, seeks similar relief and prays that his case may be considered in the same manner as directed in the aforementioned writ petitions, without applying the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024, the application of which may otherwise prejudice his claim for compassionate appointment.

4. The respondents, on the other hand, dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is stated that in the Judgment and Order dated 03.04.2025, passed by a Coordinate Bench in a bunch of writ petitions, where the lead case was WP(C)/342/2025, the challenge in those writ petitions was specifically to the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024. In light of the submissions made by the parties, the Coordinate Bench disposed of the writ petitions, directing the respondent authorities to consider the claims of the petitioners in accordance with the directions contained therein, while also considering the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024. However, the respondents argue that in the present writ petition, there is no challenge raised against the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024. The Office Memorandum in question was issued following the judgment of the Apex Court in Debabrata Tiwari (supra).

5. Under such circumstances, the respondents contend that the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable, and therefore, the writ petition should be Page No.# 4/7

dismissed. The respondents further submit that when the petitioner's father was compulsorily retired from service in 2011, the petitioner was a minor and thus could not have applied for a government job at that time. Moreover, the petitioner was a minor at the time of his father's demise in 2022, which further contributed to the delay in submitting his application for compassionate appointment. Consequently, the respondents argue that the petitioner's claim is not valid, as he was legally incapable of making the application during the relevant time due to his minority.

6. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the respondents' contention regarding his minority. It is submitted that the petitioner had already crossed the age of 18 years at the time when his father was compulsorily retired from service. Furthermore, it is argued that in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, which was in effect at the relevant time, the legal heirs or next of kin of a government servant who had prematurely retired due to permanent incapacity as certified by the State Level Standing Medical Board and who was receiving invalid pension under Rule 82, are also eligible for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the petitioner submits that he is entitled to consideration for compassionate appointment under the provisions of the applicable Office Memorandum.

7. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The pleadings available before the Court have been perused, and the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for both parties have been carefully noted.

8. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavits but have made oral submissions disputing the contentions raised by the petitioner.

9. From the averments made in the writ petition, it is apparent that the Page No.# 5/7

petitioner has challenged the order of the State Level Committee (SLC) rejecting his case on the grounds that the date of death of his father was wrongly recorded as 14.08.2009 instead of 07.07.2022. It is also evident from the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 that the scheme for compassionate appointment is applicable not only to the next of kin of government servants who have died in harness but also to the next of kin of those who have prematurely retired due to permanent incapacity, as certified by the State Level Standing Medical Board, and who receive invalid pension.

10. The writ petition includes a medical certificate from the Jorhat Medical College dated 12.05.2014, which certifies that the petitioner's father was suffering from paralysis of all limbs and was under ongoing treatment. However, there are no averments in the writ petition nor any documents to demonstrate that the petitioner's late father fulfilled the criteria prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. Specifically, there is no certificate from the State Level Standing Medical Board declaring that the petitioner's father retired due to permanent incapacity, nor any evidence that he was receiving an invalid pension. This is a crucial criterion that must be fulfilled before the next of kin of such a government servant can apply for compassionate appointment under the terms of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. Moreover, there are no specific averments to this effect in the writ petition.

11. Further, in the order of the Coordinate Bench dated 03.04.2025, rendered in a bunch of writ petitions, with the lead case being WP(C)/342/2025, which is being relied upon by the petitioner, it is seen that these writ petitions were filed challenging the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 issued by the Government of Assam. The Office Memorandum in question has been issued by the Government of Assam, which effectively does away with the scheme for Page No.# 6/7

compassionate appointment for the family members of government servants who died in harness prior to 01.04.2017. This Office Memorandum supersedes the earlier Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015.

12. In view of the submissions made and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions were disposed of with the following order:

9. In view of the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, all the writ petitions that are pending as on today, i.e., 03.04.2025, in the Gauhati High Court, which have put to challenge the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024, are to be decided as follows:-

(i) All the applications for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioners shall be considered and disposed of by the concerned DLC/SLC on merit, by taking into consideration the various guidelines prior to 01.04.2017, laid down by the State Government for compassionate appointment and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court. Consequently, the rejection of all compassionate appointments by the DLC/SLC, which have been put to challenge and are pending in the Gauhati High Court as on 03.04.2025, are set aside.

(ii) The entire process for considering the various applications for compassionate appointment and the decision to be taken in each case by the concerned authorities, should be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the concerned District Commissioner, who is also the Chairman of the DLC, if the matter pertains to the DLC. In other cases, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, who is the Chairman of the SLC, if the matter pertains the SLC.

10. It is made clear that in view of the consent of the parties, this Court has not gone into the merits of any of the petitioners' cases that are being disposed of by Page No.# 7/7

way of this order and as such, the applications for compassionate appointment should be disposed of by the concerned authorities on merit, as they deem it fit and proper. The decision/s to be taken by the concerned authorities should be based on reasons and the decision taken should be communicated to the petitioners thereafter. It is also directed that while deciding the applications for compassionate appointment, the respondents cannot take recourse to the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024, though the judgment provided therein, i.e., the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), can be considered/applied by the concerned authorities. It is again made clear that this order cannot be used as a precedent for cases that are filed on 04.04.2025 and thereafter. It shall only apply to cases that are pending before this Court as on 03.04.2025.

13. In the present proceedings, the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 is not under challenge. Even otherwise, as discussed above, the writ petitioner has not made specific averments, as required, nor has he enclosed any documents to demonstrate that his late father fulfilled the conditions specified in the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 concerning retiring personnel. There is no certificate from the Standing Medical Board, nor any other supporting documents, to show that the petitioner's late father was receiving invalid pension.

14. In view of the foregoing, this Court does not find any merit in the submissions made by the writ petitioner. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant