Indrajit Borah vs State Of Assam And 4 Ors

Heard Mr. B K Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M D Bora, the learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 and 4 being the DLC of Kamrup (M) and the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M) respectively. Also heard Mr. I Kalita, the learned counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 5 being the authorities in the Forest Department.

The father of the petitioner Rupeswar Borah was serving as Lance Naik in the first Forest Protection Force, Assam and he died in harness on 04.08.2012. On his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment wherein there is an endorsement by the authorities in the Forest Department that it was received on 19.11.2012. It is stated that subsequently, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam had required the petitioner to submit an application in the prescribed format instead in the manner it was earlier submitted. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application in the prescribed format. The application/applications of the petitioner was/were placed before the DLC of Kamrup(M) district on 19.06.2018. By the resolution thereof, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment stood rejected on the ground of late submission of application.

Mr. M D Bora, the learned counsel for the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M) refers to a para-wise comment that was provided to the Deputy Commissioner on behalf of the Commandant, First Assam Forest Protection Force Guwahati.

The para-wise comment reflects that the petitioner had made an application for compassionate appointment on 19.11.2012, but later on, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Force, Assam had required it to be submitted in a prescribed format. Accordingly, the conclusion was that one application was submitted on 19.11.2012 i.e. within the period of one year from the death of the person concerned and the other prescribed format application was submitted on 23.05.2014.

In view of such factual situation, we are unable to accept the reasoning of DLC of Kamrup(M) district rejecting the claim of the petitioner for late submission of application. We have to accept that the petitioner submitted his application on 19.11.2012 which is within the prescribed time limit and the subsequent application was only a requirement of the authorities themselves to be submitted in the prescribed formant.

For the interest of justice, both the applications be placed before the DLC of Kamrup(M) district. Accordingly, the rejection of the DLC of Kamrup(M) in its meeting of 19.06.2018 stands set aside and the matter be remanded back to be placed before the DLC of Kamrup(M) district for a fresh consideration on the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

The copy of the para-wise comment is kept on record.

Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.