Gauhati High Court
Nabanita Lahkar vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 11 March, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 GAU 261
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010021592020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 751/2020
1:NABANITA LAHKAR
D/O- LATE KARUNA LAHKAR, R/O- VILL- NO.2 LAZUM, WARD NO.3, P.O-
MARGHERITA (NEAR CIVIL HOSPITAL) P.S- TINSUKIA, DIST- TINSUKIA,
ASSAM, PIN- 786181
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM,
FOREST DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06
2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
ARANYA BHAWAN
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI- 29
ASSAM
3:DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
DIGBOI DIVISION
DIGBOI
DIST- TINSUKIA
PIN- 781171
ASSAM
4:FOREST RANGE OFFICER
MARGHERITA WEST RANGE
DIST- TINSUKIA
PIN- 786181
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J KALITA
Page No.# 2/5
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 11-03-2020 Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner's father died in harness on 08.12.1995, while serving as Forester-I in the Forest Department. The petitioner's mother filed an application for compassionate appointment on 03.02.1996. However, as the petitioner's mother's application for compassionate appointment was not being considered by the authorities, the petitioner's mother requested the authorities to consider the candidature of the present petitioner instead of her. Accordingly, in the earlier part of the year 2007, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment.
2. The petitioner's counsel submits that at the time the petitioner's father died, the petitioner was only 7 (seven) years old and after attaining majority, the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment, which is 11 (eleven) years after the death of her father.
3. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner's case has not been considered by the authorities till date and accordingly, a direction should be issued to the State Level Committee to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar & Others, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195.
Page No.# 3/5
4. Mr. S.S. Roy, learned counsel for the Government counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was submitted only on 03.02.2010. He accordingly submits that the writ petition should be dismissed, as the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was hit by delay and laches.
5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. In the case of Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar & Others (Supra), the Apex Court has held that though the widow of the deceased Government Servant had initially filed an application for compassionate appointment within the specified time period, the same was rejected without any reasons. Though the appellant in the above case, who was the son of the deceased Government Servant, had filed an application when he was 13 (thirteen) years old and as the same was rejected by the authority at the time when the appellant had crossed 18 (eighteen) years, the Apex Court held that counsel for the State could not point out any circumstance for which the appellant would be disentitled for appointment except he was only 13 (thirteen) years at the time he applied, which was 5 (five) years after the death of his father. Thus, the Apex Court held that the appellant's application had to be considered and the appellant be given appropriate appointment.
7. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Others, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192, the Apex Court has held that there cannot be a reservation of a vacancy till such time the claimant becomes a major, after a number of years. The Apex Court in SAIL Vs. Madhusudan Das, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 560 has held that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is also settled law that the very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family of the deceased Page No.# 4/5 Government Servant gets immediate relief. In the present case, the petitioner was 7 (seven) years old at the time of the death of her father. Her application was submitted only after 11 (eleven) years after the death of her father. As the very basis for compassionate appointment is to ensure that the family gets immediate relief, the filing of the application for compassionate appointment after 11 (eleven) years goes against the very object of giving compassionate appointment. In this particular case, the petitioner's father died in 1995. 25 (twenty-five) years have passed since the death of the Government Servant. It has to be understood that the family of the deceased Government Servant have been able to survive for the last 25 (twenty-five) years without compassionate appointment and if compassionate appointment has to be given now, the very purpose of giving compassionate appointment stands defeated.
8. In the case of Rattiram Vs. State of M.P, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 516 , the Apex Court has held that a judgment of a Co-equal Bench is also binding on a Bench of Judges of equal strength and a judgment given in ignorance of the judgment of earlier Bench of Co-equal strength attracts the concept of per incuriam. If the subsequent Bench does not agree with the decision of the earlier Bench, the same has to be referred to a larger Bench. In the present case, the 2 Judges Bench decision relied upon by the petitioner's counsel, i.e., Syed Khadim Hussain (Supra) is of the year 2005 and the decision of the 2 Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar is of the year 2000. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, as the same was made earlier in point of time. Thus, this Court holds that there cannot be a reservation of vacancy for compassionate appointment till such time a minor becomes a major. Also, the application for compassionate appointment has been Page No.# 5/5 filed 11 (eleven) years after the death of the petitioner's father, without anything to show that the petitioner's mother was ineligible to be considered for appointment on compassionate basis.
9. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant