Gauhati High Court
Biraj Chandra Das vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 6 January, 2025
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010149872023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4086/2023
BIRAJ CHANDRA DAS
S/O- LATE BIMAL CHANDRA DAS ,
R/O- VILLAGE RAMRAIKUTHI PART I,
P.O- SATRASAL, P.S- AGOMONI,
DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783335
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY)
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM CHIEF SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT . OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-19
4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE
APPOINTMENT
DHUBRI
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Page No.# 2/8
DHUBRI
ASSAM.
5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
DHUBRI
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DAS,
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
06.01.2025
Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. N.
Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5. And also
heard Mr. P. K. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and 4,
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner,
namely, Biraj Chandra Das, has prayed for issuing directions to the respondent
authorities to place his case again in the next State Level Committee (SLC)
Meeting and also to quash the decision of the SLC dated 26.08.2022. It is to be
noted here that vide its decision dated 26.08.2022, the SLC has rejected the
case of the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground as per
recommendation of the District Level Committee (DLC) vide its letter dated
28.12.2021. It is also to be noted here that the DLC has recommended the case
of the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground as per order of
this Court in WP(C) No.5604/2017, dated 27.10.2021.
3. The grievance of the petitioner, being sought to be addressed in this writ
Page No.# 3/8
petition is that his father, namely, Late Bimal Chandra Das was working as
Assistant Teacher of 7 No. Jhaskal Brojanath Pradhani L.P. School. He died in
harness on 23.01.2006. At the time of death of his father, the age of the
petitioner was 15 years 2 months 2 days. On attaining majority, the petitioner
had filed an application on 27.05.2008, for being appointed on compassionate
ground as he had passed Higher Secondary in the meantime. But, his case was
not placed before the DLC. He then filed one Writ Petition, being WP(C) No.
3703/2015 and the petition was disposed of vide Order dated 23.06.2015, with
a direction to the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), to place the
claim of the petitioner before the DLC. But the same was not kept in abeyance
till receiving of instruction from the Government (Education Department).
Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred another Writ Petition being WP(C) No.
5604/2017, wherein vide Order dated 27.10.2021, this Court was pleased to
dispose of the same by directing the petitioner to submit one representation
before the DEEO on 15.11.2021 along with all the relevant documents of
qualification, right from HSLC to D.El.Ed (ODL) Examination 2019. Thereafter,
the application of the petitioner was placed on before the DLC on 18.12.2021
and accordingly, the DLC had recommended the name of the petitioner for
being appointed as on compassionate ground. But, the SLC had not considered
the case of the petitioner. The petitioner then again preferred another Writ
Petition being WP(C) No. 8301/2022 which was disposed of being infructuous
vide Order dated 23.01.2023, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach
before appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance pertaining to the
decision of the SLC dated 26.08.2022. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that
the SLC had rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petition
was filed after one year from the date of death of his father and due to non-
Page No.# 4/8
availability of norms as provided in the Office Memorandum
No.ABP.50/2006/Pt./182 dated 01.06.2015, but it had not taken into account
that at the time of death of the father of the petitioner, he was a minor and
without taking note of the order dated 23.06.2015 of this Court in WP(C) No.
3703/2015 and also the order dated 27.10.2021 passed in WP(C) No.
5604/2017.
4. The state respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4 had not filed their affidavit-in-
opposition. Though sufficient opportunity was afforded to them.
5. Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision of
the SLC is arbitrary and smacked with mala-fides, as it has failed to take into
account that the petitioner was minor at the relevant point of time, i.e. at the
time of death of his father. Mr. Das, further submits that the SLC had also failed
to take note of the orders of this Court dated 23.06.2015 in WP(C) No.
3703/2015 and order dated 27.10.2021 in WP(C) No. 5604/2017. Mr. Das has
referred two decisions of this Court in (i) Trailukya Nath vs. State of
Assam and Ors, reported in 2016 (5) GLT 310, and (ii) Puja Devi vs.
State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2020 (3) GLT 799, to contend that
the limitation for filing the petition for compassionate appointment is directory
not mandatory. Referring to another decision of this Court in WP(C) No.
7292/2022, (Bikash Kr. Nath vs. The State of Assam & 4 Ors.), Mr.
Das submits that this Court, having quashed the decision of SLC had referred
the matter again for fresh consideration. And as such, Mr. Das has contended to
grant similar relief to the petitioner.
6. Per contra, Mr. P. K. Saikia, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2
and 4 submits that the SLC has not committed any illegality in dismissing the
Page No.# 5/8
claim of the petitioner as the same was filed after the limitation period of one
year from the date of death of the father of the petitioner. Mr. Saikia, has also
referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the State of West Bengal
vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. ETC.ETC. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC)
175 to contend that the father of the petitioner died in the year 23.01.2006, and
since then many years elapsed and the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost in
the meantime and the family of the deceased have been able to sustain
themselves. Mr. Saikia, also submits that on the basis of the said decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Personnel-B Department of the Govt. of Assam had
issued one Office Memorandum, dated 18 th September, 2024 discontinuing the
Scheme and also issued direction to the Administrative Departments not to
entertain any case of compassionate appointment, as such cases are being
taken care of vide another Scheme i.e. “Compassionate Family Pension
Scheme in lieu of Compassionate appointment” vide No. FEG
28/2017/26 dated 14.09.2017. Mr. Saikia, further submits that there is no merit
in the petition and therefore, contended to dismiss the same.
7. On the other hand, Mr. P.N. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent No.1, 3 and 5 also subscribes the submission of Mr. Saikia the
learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4.
8. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both the parties, I
have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record.
Also, I have gone through the decisions referred by learned Advocates of both
sides.
9. It appears that there is no dispute regarding the basic facts herein this
case. The petitioner had filed an application for being appointed on
Page No.# 6/8
compassionate ground after more than one year of death of his father, Late
Bimal Chandra Das, who was working as Assistant Teacher of 7 No. Jhaskal
Brojanath Pradhani L.P. School and died in harness on 23.01.2006. It also
appears that the application could not be filed in time, as at the time of death of
his father, he was 15 years 2 months 2 days. As he attained majority, he had
filed the application on 27.05.2008 having been passed Higher Secondary in the
meantime. Having not been placed his application before the DLC he had filed
one Writ Petition, being WP(C) No. 3703/2015, where in a direction was issued
to the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), to place the claim of the
petitioner before the DLC. But the same was not kept in abeyance till receiving
of instruction from the Government (Education Department). Thereafter,
pursuant to Order dated 27.10.2021,in WP(C) No. 5604/2017, the petitioner had
submitted one representation before the DEEO on 15.11.2021 with all the
relevant documents of qualification, his application was placed before the DLC
on 18.12.2021 and accordingly, the DLC had recommended the name of the
petitioner for being appointed as on compassionate ground. But, the SLC had
rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petition was filed
after one year from the date of death of his father and due to non-availability of
norms as provided in the Office Memorandum No.ABP.50/2006/Pt./182, dated
01.06.2015, vide impugned Minutes of the Meeting held on 26.08.2022.
10. That, perusal of the impugned Minutes of the Meeting of the SLC held on
26.08.2022, indicates that it had not taken into account that at the time of
death of the father of the petitioner, he was minor. Further, it appears that the
SLC had not taken into account the Order dated 23.06.2015 of this Court in
WP(C) No. 3703/2015 and also the order dated 27.10.2021 passed in WP(C) No.
5604/2017.
Page No.# 7/8
11. It is well settled in the case of Trailukya Nath (supra) and in Puja
Devi (supra) that the limitation of one year in filing the petition for
compassionate appointment after the death of sole earning member of the
family is directory not mandatory. It is not inflexible.
12. But, this aspect eschewed consideration of the SLC. It had adopted the
impugned minutes of meeting concerning the case of the petitioner
mechanically and acted like a Post Office. On such count, the impugned Minutes
of Meeting of the SLC by which the case of the petitioner is repudiated is
arbitrary and it failed to withstand legal scrutiny.
13. I have taken note of the submission of Mr. Saikia the learned Standing
Counsel for the respondent authorities No. 2 and 4 and also gone through the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of West Bengal vs.
Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. ETC.ETC. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175
and also gone through the Office Memorandum dated 18th September, 2024
issued by the Personnel-B Department of the Govt. of Assam, discontinuing the
Scheme of compassionate appointment, and also the Scheme i.e.
“Compassionate Family Pension Scheme in lieu of Compassionate appointment”
vide No. FEG 28/2017/26 dated 14.09.2017. But, I find that the case of the
petitioner is much prior to all the Office Memorandum issued by the respondent
authorities. Therefore, the same cannot be applied retrospectively to negate the
case of the petitioner. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Saikia cannot be
accepted.
14. In the result, I find merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stand
allowed. The impugned Minutes of the Meeting, dated 26.08.2022, concerning
the petitioner, by which his claim was repudiated, stands set aside and quashed.
Page No.# 8/8
Taking note of the decision of this Court in Trailukya Nath (supra) and in
Puja Devi (supra) and also the decision of this Court in WP(C) No.
7292/2022, (Bikash Kr. Nath vs. The State of Assam & 4 Ors.), the
case of the petitioner is remanded back to SLC for fresh consideration. It is
further provided that while considering the case of the petitioner a fresh, the
SLC shall take into account all the decisions of this Court, as discussed herein
above. And this exercise has to be carried out within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is needless to mention
here that on account of insensitiveness of the respondent authorities, the
matter is hanging since 27.05.2008.
15. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. The parties have
to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant