Gauhati High Court
Md. Saddam Hussain vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 6 August, 2022
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010134762022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5086/2022
MD. SADDAM HUSSAIN
S/O LATE SAMSUDDIN AHMED, VILL-SIMELIBARI, P.O.-MANDAKATA, P.S.-
BAIHATA CHARALI, DIST-KAMRUP(R), ASSAM, PIN-781121
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM,
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-
781006
2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
(SLC)
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
3:THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPT
ASSAM
CHENIKUTHI
GUWAHATI-781003
4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP DISTRICT (M)
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781001
5:THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY OFFICER
CHENIKUTHI
Page No.# 2/4
GUWAHATI
KAMRUP DISTRICT (M)
PIN-78100
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHETRI
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 06.08.2022 Heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the petitioner's father died in harness on 11.07.2014, while working as a Grade- IV employee in the Office of the respondent No. 5.
2) The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and the same was considered by the District Level Committee (DLC) Kamrup in its meeting held on 19.08.2015. The DLC meeting minutes dated 19.08.2015 recommended the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to a Grade-IV post.
3) The State Level Committee (SLC) thereafter, vide its meeting minutes dated 30.12.2015, rejected the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on the ground of non availability of vacancy.
4) The petitioner's counsel prays that the SLC meeting minutes dated 30.12.2015 should be set aside and the case of the petitioner be remanded back to the SLC for re-consideration. The petitioner's counsel also submits that one person, whose application for compassionate appointment had been Page No.# 3/4 rejected by the SLC in the same meeting minutes dated 30.12.2015 had approached this Court earlier, vide WP (C) No. 893/2019, which was disposed of vide Order dated 05.04.2019. He submits that vide the Order passed in WP (C) No. 893/2019, the case of the petitioner therein was directed to be placed before the next SLC meeting for consideration.
5) He accordingly submits that a similar order should be passed.
6) Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner became aware of the SLC decision only in the year 2021. He submits that though there is a delay of more than six years, in filing the writ petition, the same should be condoned in terms of the judgments of this Court in the case of Ajij Jaman Barbhuiya Vs. State of Assam and Others reported in 2018 (2) GLT 390, Union of India and Others Vs. Ajant Boro and Others reported in 2009 (1) GLT 550, Surendra Nath Talukdar and Others Vs The Senior Regional Manager FCI and Others reported in (1991) 2 GLR 480 and the Apex Court Judgment in the case of Mathew David Vs State of Kerala reported in (2020) 14 SCC 577.
7) Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition should be dismissed due to delay and laches, as the writ petition has been filed after six years eight months after the SLC had made its decision, rejecting the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment.
8) Issue notice, returnable within six weeks.
Page No.# 4/4
9) Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of all the
respondents.
10) The Apex Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs.
Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others reported in 2015 (1) SSC 347 has held that the normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by Court, all other identical situated persons need to be treated alike by extending the same benefit, as otherwise it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, this principle is subject to the well recognised exception in the form of laches and delay as they would be treated a fence sitter.
11) The question of delay and laches is accordingly kept open.
12) List the matter after six weeks.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant