Parameswar Basumatary vs State Of Assam And 5 Ors.

Heard Ms. P. Baruah. Bordoloi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Goswami, the learned State Counsel appears for the respondent

Nos. 1, 5 and 6. Mr. N. Upadhaya, the learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

The case pertains to non-consideration of the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father on

08.11.2013 while rendering his service as PPO under the establishment of the respondent No.4. Ms. P. Baruah Bordoloi also submits that although the

application submitted by the petitioner was considered by the District Level Committee (DLC) on 23.05.2014 and 24.04.2015, the committee decided

to consider his case in the next DLC meeting, as the vacancy position did not permit his recommendation. Subsequently, the DLC which met on

24.06.2016 came to the conclusion that there was no vacancy and moreover, 2 years had gone by since the submission of the application and

therefore, the application of the petitioner was considered to have spent its force.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the State respondents vide Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 (Annexure-12) clearly

laid down the guidelines which are to be followed for appointment on compassionate basis. She submits that the Paragraph- 15 of the office

memorandum provides that if sufficient vacancies are not available in a particular office to accommodate the applicant for compassionate

appointment, it is open to the Administrative Department to take up the matter with the other Department to provide an early appointment on

compassionate basis to those who are in the waiting list. She, therefore, submits that the respondents could have easily considered the petitioner’s

application in terms of the Office Memorandum by not rejecting her application in the manner was done.

The learned counsel Ms. P. Baruah. Bordoloi also submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 28.03.2018 passed

in WP(C) 1454/2017 has directed the DLC concerned to consider the case of the petitioner against any other vacant post available in other

establishment in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. Therefore, the DLC may be likewise directed to consider the case of the

petitioner against any other available vacancy in other establishments.

Against the writ petition, the respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition till date. However, having regard to paragraph 15 of the Office

Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, I am of the considered view that the case of the writ petitioner deserves to be reconsidered by the DLC.

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to place the case of the petitioner before

the respondent No. 5 within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The respondent No. 5 on receipt of

the same shall place the case of the petitioner before the next DLC meeting and the DLC shall consider his case in terms of paragraph 15 of the

Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 issued by the Department of Personnel (B). In short, the petitioner should be considered against any available

vacancy in other department apart from the Irrigation Department.

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

No cost.