Naba Kumar Nath vs State Of Assam And 4 Ors

Heard Mr. R Mazumdar, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. N Goswami, the learned State counsel for the official respondents.

Also heard Dr.B Ahmed, the learned Standing Counsel for the Irrigation Department.

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

The facts of the case in brief is that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 13.07.2015 while he was working as a Blue Printer in the

establishment of Superintendent Engineer, South Goalpara Circle (Irrigation) (respondent No.5).

The petitioner thereafter submitted an application seeking compassionateappointment on 10.08.2015. His application was thereafter forwarded by

the respondent No.5 on 25.08.2015 to the Chairman â€"cum- Deputy Commissioner, District Level Committee, Goalpara district i.e. respondent No.4.

In the proposal submitted by the respondent No.5, it was indicated that one post of Grade-IV (Blue Printer) was lying vacant due to the demise of the

incumbent who in fact was the father of the petitioner. Consequently, the DLC in its meeting held on 20.05.2016 recommended the petitioner for

appointment on compassionate basis for the year 2015. However, when the recommendation of the DLC was placed before the State Level

Committee (SLC), the SLC rejected the application of the petitioner in its meeting held on 13.12.2017. As per the decision taken by the SLC, the

petitioner’s application was rejected since the post of Blue Printer was held to be a redundant post and a reference of Office Memorandum No.

FS15/ 2005/ VOL-VI/76 dated 30.03.2012 was also made. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

The learned counsel Mr. R Mazumdar submits that the recommendation made by theDLC could not have been rejected by the SLC inasmuch as

there was a clear vacancy shown by respondent No.5 while sending the proposal to the Chairman of the DLC (respondent No.4). The learned

counsel by referring to the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, issued by the Department of Personnel (B) vide Memo No. ABP-50/2006/PT/182,

more particularly, Clause-15 of the Office Memorandum, submits that if sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to accommodate

persons waiting in line for compassionate appointment, it was open for administrative department or the establishment concerned to take up the matter

with other departments or office under the State Government to provide an early appointment on compassionate ground for those who are in the

waiting list. He therefore, submits that even if it was felt by SLC that the post of Blue Printer being a redundant post and the same cannot be filled, it

was always open for the authorities concerned to accommodate the petitioner against any other similar Grade-IV post existing either in the Irrigation

Department or in other departments. Thus, the learned counsel submits that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to re-consider the

appointment of the petitioner on compassionate basis against any available vacancies.

Dr. B Ahmed, the learned Standing Counsel for the Irrigation Department submitsthat it is not necessary for the persons claiming compassionate

appointment to be accommodated against a particular post to which the application is made. In fact, an applicant can be accommodated against any

Grade-IV post or equivalent post subject to availability of such vacancies.

Mr. N Goswami, the learned State counsel submits that appointment oncompassionate basis is to be restricted to 5% of the vacancies available only

and therefore, the case of the petitioner can be considered only if there is sufficient vacancy.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties and I have perusedthe materials available on record.

From the proposal submitted by the respondent No.5 to the respondent No.4, it can beseen that there is clearly one vacant post in Grade-IV ( Blue

Printer) lying vacant and accordingly, when the DLC considered the proposal, a recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner. However, the

SLC in its meeting held on 13.12.2017 rejected the recommendation of the DLC on the ground that the recommended post was redundant. A perusal

of the SLC meeting minutes besides referring to Office Memorandum dated 13.03.2012 does not express in many words as to how the post of Blue

Printer has become redundant. The fact remains that the scheme of compassionate appointment has been devised by the State Government in its own

wisdom is to grant some relief to the family members of the deceased Government servant and apparently keeping this spirit in mind, Office

Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 appears to have been circulated. In that view of the matter, rejection of the application of the petitioner for

compassionate appointment by the SLC on the ground of the post of Blue Printer having become redundant cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the SLC meeting minutes dated 13.12.2017, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, stands interfered with. Consequently, the respondent

No. 2 is directed to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment against any vacant post in its next meeting. The

respondent No.2 shall also be at liberty to requisition all the required materials for considering the case of the petitioner from the respondent Nos. 4

and 5. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.Â