Gauhati High Court
Parag Kumar Das vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 17 November, 2021
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010106112016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/440/2016
PARAG KUMAR DAS
S/O. LT. DANDA DAS, VILL. BORDIHINGIA SONOWAL GAON, P.O.
KAMARGAON, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP. BY THE COMM. and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, POWER DEPTT.,
DISPUR, GHY.-781006.
2:CHIEF GEN. MANAGER
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.
UPPER ASSAM DIVN.
BIJULEE BHAWAN
GHY.
DIST. KAMRUP M
PIN-781001.
3:SR. MANAGER
GOLAGHAT ELECTRICAL DIVN.
GOLAGHAT
DIST. GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN-785078.
4:SUB-DIVISIOAL ENGINEER
KAMARGAON
ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVN.
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. ASEB
Page No.# 2/5
KAMARGAON
DIST. GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS K SARKAR
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
17.11.2021 Heard Mr. S. N. Tamuli, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel for the A.S.E.B. The father of the petitioner was an employee of erstwhile A.S.E.B, now a corporation namely A.P.D.C.L constituted under Electricity Act, 2003 and registered under Companies Act. This company is owned by the State. The father of the petitioner while working as Grade-D employee was died on 23.08.2010. The petitioner being the dependent applied for compassionate appointment immediately filing the necessary application as well as submitted his relevant documents. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent has not acted upon his application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the death of his father, the petitioner submitted an application praying for his compassionate appointment on 28.08.2010 to the Manager, Kamargaon Electrical Sub-Division, Kamargaon, Assam and the same was forwarded to Sr. Manager, APDCL, Golaghat Division and then to the Manager (HR), APDCL, Guwahati for further action. As there was no reply, the petitioner also submitted another application dated 27.07.2011 to the Assistant Manager, Kamargaon Electrical Sub-Division, Kamargaon, Assam and forwarded the same to the Page No.# 3/5 General Manager, Golaghat Electrical Division, Golaghat. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted another application dated 13.02.2015 to the Chief Manager, Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, Paltanbazar and on receipt of the aforesaid application, the same was forwarded to the Chief General Manager (D), APDCL, UAR, along with the relevant documents vide forwarding dated 19.03.2015 for consideration of case of the petitioner on compassionate ground as aforesaid. Accordingly necessary papers along with the details of income of the family of the petitioner, the dependent persons were forwarded to the competent authorities within due time. As there was no response from the respondent authorities and having no alternative, he has approached this court for redressal of his grievance.
An affidavit has been filed by the APDCL i.e. respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. This court is not at all happy with the conduct of the respondents more particularly the way the affidavit has been filed. The only contention raised in the affidavit is quoted below:-
"7. That the deponent begs to state that the petitioner father was died in harness. The father of the petitioner was expired on 23.08.2010 due to illness and therefore the case is not fall under the purview of the "APDCL Compassionate Appointment Scheme, 2014 and also the 2005 scheme".
A bare reading of that paragraph, depicts that a simple reason has been given that case of the petitioner did not fall under the purview of the APDCL Compassionate Appointment Scheme, 2014 and also the 2005 scheme. No explanation was given under which clause or under what provision, the petitioner has been declined for consideration of compassionate appointment on the extant office memorandum. Such kind of affidavit is not appreciated by this Page No.# 4/5 court.
Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioner takes this court to Clause 11 of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, 2014 to advance his argument that for the reason given in Clause 11, the petitioner could not be appointed on the compassionate appointment.
A bare reading of Clause 11 of the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment, 2014 it is found as below:-
"11. Preference shall be given for appointment on compassionate in the case of following categories of cases:-
(i) Serving employees or temporary workers engaged directly by APDCL died due to accident or mishap while on Company's duty/work.
(ii) Serving employees or temporary workers engaged directly by APDCL killed due to extremist violence while in company's duty/work.
(iii) In the event of non-appointment an ex-gratia amount to Rs.2,00,000/-
(Two lakhs) may be paid to the dependent of the deceased employee/temporary worker referred in (i) & (ii) above".
Such clause only depicts to whom preferential treatment is to be given but such clause don't disentitled the petitioner. The Clause 4 of the Schemes for Compassionate Appointment, 2014 makes it clear, to whom this claim of 2014 is applicable and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was an employee of APDCL and the petitioner come within the purview of dependent family member as mentioned in Clause 4 of that Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, 2014. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is entitled in view of the office order dated 05.10.2010 Page No.# 5/5 (Annexure-2) for consideration of compassionate appointment. The fact remains that the respondent Corporation has never intimated the petitioner either rejection or acceptation of his claim for compassionate appointment. It is also submitted that the respondent authority had not passed any order on the application filed by the petitioner.
In the case in hand, there was no order as such rejecting the claim of the petitioner and the petitioner is having vested and concluded right to know the reasons of rejection of his application.
In aforesaid view of the matter, the contention of the respondent authority as stated in paragraph 7 is hereby rejected and they are directed to look into the matter afresh and pass necessary order on the basis of available norms and schemes of the APDCL, With the said observation and discussions, this writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant