Gauhati High Court
Mithu Nath vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 21 May, 2025
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010152282023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3982/2023
MITHU NATH
S/O LT. MANKUMAR NATH,
VILL.- TAPANG PART- II, P.O.- CHIBITA BICHIA, P.S.- SILCHAR (SADAR),
DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788150.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
DEPTT. OF HOME AFFAIRS, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6.
2:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
HAILAKANDI
DIST.- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 788151.
3:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) FOR COMPASSIONATE
APPOINTMENT
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GHY- 06.
4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC) FOR COMPASSIONATE
APPOINTMENT
REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HAILAKANDI
DIST.- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 788151
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S B LASKAR, MS D DUTTA,MS N KALITA,MR. H A
Page No.# 2/6
LASKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,
Linked Case : WP(C)/6990/2021
MITHU NATH
S/O LT. MANKUMAR NATH
VILL-TAPANG PART-II
P.O.-CHIBITA BICHIA
P.S.-SILCHAR (SADAR)
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788150
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF HOME HOME AFFAIRS
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
2:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
HAILKANDI
DIST-HAILKANDI
ASSAM
3:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) FOR COMPASSIONATE
APPOINTMENT
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GHY-06
4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC)
HAILAKANDI
FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HAILKANDI
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN-788151
Page No.# 3/6
------------
Advocate for : MR. S B LASKAR
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
21.05.2025
Heard Mr. S. B. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners
in both these writ petitions. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Sr. Govt.
Advocate, Assam appearing for the State.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of these writ petitions
are as follows. The petitioner's father, who was a Grade-III employee and was
serving as an AB Constable in the office of the Superintendent of Police,
Hailakandi, died in harness on 08.01.1994 leaving behind the petitioner and his
widow as surviving legal heirs. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner
was a minor. However, upon attaining majority the petitioner had applied for
appointment on compassionate ground on 13.06.2007. His application was
considered by the District Level Committee, Hailakandi vide resolution dated
07.10.2009 whereby, the petitioner was recommended for appointment against
a post of AB constable. The matter was thereafter placed before the State
Level Committee but when no action was taken in respect thereof the
petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.6990/2021.
3. The respondents filed counter-affidavit in the aforesaid writ petition inter-
alia contending that the SLC had rejected the application of the petitioner vide
resolution dated 19.12.2011 on the ground that the application was belated.
Page No.# 4/6
4. According to the petitioner, no intimation about the rejection of his
application by the SLC was ever furnished to him and he came to know about
the same, for the first time, only from the counter-affidavit filed by the State in
WP(C) No.6990/2021. Accordingly, WP(C) No.3982/2023 was instituted by the
petitioner assailing the decision of the SLC as recorded in its minutes of meeting
dated 19.12.2011.
5. The respondent No.1 has filed affidavit-in-opposition in WP(C)
No.3982/2023. The averments made in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit
would be pertinent in this case and therefore, the same are being reproduced
herein below for ready reference :-
"5. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 9 of the
writ petition the deponent begs to state that the proposal for
appointment on compassionate ground in respect of Shri Mithu Nath,
S/o Lt. Man Kumar Nath was received along with duly signed Checklist.
From the available records it is found that father of the petitioner Late
Man Kumar Nath expired on 08/01/1994 as per the death certificate and
as per the checklist the date of application of the petitioner is
13/06/2007. The minutes of DLC meeting held on 07/10/2009 reveals that
the petitioner was recommended for the post of AB Constable.
On 19/12/2011, the meeting of SLC was held but SLC could not
recommend the candidate for appointment on compassionate ground
due to the following reason :-
"Late submission of application, applied after one year from the
death of the Govt. servant."
However, Hon'ble High Court in judgment dated 01/12/2022 passed in
WQP(C) 7059/2021 (Rituraj Chetia Vs. SoA & ors) had observed that in
case of Compassionate Appointment the scheme prevailing on the date
of death of the employee would govern the claim.
Hence, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court mentioned
above and the applicable O.M. of that period, this department has
Page No.# 5/6
decided for placing the case of Sri Mithu Nath before the next SLC."
6. From the above stand of the respondent No.1, as reflected in para 5 of
the counter-affidavit, it is clear that the respondents are willing to act in terms of
the judgment and order of this Court passed in the case of Rituraj Chetia Vs.
State of Assam and others wherein it has been held that in case of
compassionate appointment the scheme prevailing on the date of death of
the employee would govern the claim and consider the case of the writ
petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground even at this point of time.
7. Mr. R. Dhar, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam submits that considering
the lapse of time in this case, the claim of the petitioner would stand
extinguished not only under several decisions of the Supreme Court but also
judgment of this Court and therefore, regardless of the stand taken in the
counter-affidavit, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered. I am
afraid, the above submission of Mr. Dhar cannot be accepted by this Court.
Once the State has taken a stand by filing counter-affidavit agreeing to
consider the case of the writ petitioner, it will be bound by the above stand.
Therefore, the learned Government Advocate cannot be permitted to argue in
a manner which is contrary to the stand projected in the counter-affidavit filed
by the State. In such circumstances, it will also not be necessary for this Court to
issue any direction to the State to consider the case of the petitioner. To that
extent the legal hurdles referred to by Mr. Dhar would also not be of any
significance in the facts of the present case.
8. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, this writ
petition is disposed of by providing that the case of the petitioner be processed
Page No.# 6/6
in the light of the stand taken by the State as reflected in paragraph 5 of the
counter-affidavit. Consequential actions be initiated as expeditiously as
possible, but not later than 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order.
Both the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
