Gauhati High Court
Smt. Anupama Roy vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 25 October, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 GAU 529
Author: N. Kotiswar Singh
Bench: N. Kotiswar Singh
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010035722017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 5043/2017
1:SMT. ANUPAMA ROY
W/O LT. BIMAL CHANDRA SUTRADHAR R/O VILL- GODHARBORI P.O.
BALBOLA, P.S. AGIA DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM PIN - 783120.
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS.
THROUGH- THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. OF
ASSAM, EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -
781006.
2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE
FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
THE CHIEF SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI - 781006.
3:THE DIRECOTR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI - 781019
4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GOALPARA
P.O. and DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN - 783120
5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
Page No.# 2/6
GOALPARA
P.O. AND DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN - 78412
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.T DEWAN
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH
ORDER
Date : 25-10-2019 Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B, Deuri, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department, appearing for the respondents.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the rejection of her claim for compassionate appointment under die-in-harness scheme. Petitioner's claim for appointment under the said scheme was rejected by the concerned District Level Committee (DLC), Goalpara, in its meeting held on 20.07.2016.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the DLC had wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner had received certain amounts on account of DCRG, GIS, GPF, Leave salary, etc. and that the petitioner owns 1 (one) Bigha of land and has annual income of Rs. 25,000/- from other sources and, therefore, the financial condition of the petitioner was satisfactory. It has also been mentioned in the proceeding of the DLC meeting that the petitioner is a single family member of Late Bimal Chandra Sutradhar, i.e., deceased husband of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she has no other means of income except the monthly pension which she is receiving. It is submitted that as regards DCRG, GIS, GPF, Leave salary, etc., these are entitlements received by not only the present petitioner but all the applicants under the die-in-harness scheme and, as such, this cannot be a ground for rejection of the petitioner's application for appointment under the scheme. It is further Page No.# 3/6 submitted that the petitioner had sold the land soon after the death of her husband on 11.02.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that it is also not correct that the petitioner is the single family member as the petitioner is also looking after the old mother of her late husband, Bimal Chandra Sutradhar. In this connection, the petitioner has referred to the Next of Kin Certificate, which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-2.
5. It can be seen from the Next of Kin Certificate that the mother-in-law of the petitioner is 70 years old and, therefore, the aforesaid conclusion of the DLC that the petitioner is the single family member was not based on correct factual position.
6. Mr. Deuri, however, has submitted that the principles for considering claim for appointment on compassionate ground have been provided under the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2016, issued by the Government. He has submitted that it has been specifically mentioned in Principle-6 of the aforesaid Office Memorandum that in order to decide on the question of financial status of the family of a claimant regard will be had to the following.
(a) Gratuity amount received/receivable.
(b) Family pension payable.
(c) Provident Fund amount received/receivable.
(d) Any ex-gratia payment made or payable.
(e) Proceeds of LIC policy and other investment of the deceased.
(f) Income of the family from other sources.
(g) Employment of other family members.
(h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any.
7. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned State counsel that the DLC did not commit any error in taking into consideration the aforesaid amounts received by the petitioner towards DCRG, GIS, GPF, Leave salary, etc. It is further submitted by him that as regards possession of cultivable land and other source of income, these were questions of fact which had been considered by the DLC on the basis of the records available. Accordingly, it is submitted that the rejection of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment cannot be said to be illegal.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that even though the aforesaid factors were taken into consideration by the DLC in its meeting held on 01.06.2015 while Page No.# 4/6 rejecting the claim of the petitioner, it is mentioned in paragraph 9(b) of the Office Memorandum that while considering the claim for appointment under die-in-harness scheme, if the monthly income of the family falls below the minimum salary of a Grade-IV employee, the applicant can be considered to be in need of immediate financial assistance. The relevant portion of paragraph 9 of the aforesaid Office Memorandum reads as follows:
"(9) The family of a deceased or prematurely retired or missing government employee shall be considered to be in need of immediate financial assistance if any of the two conditions mentioned below is satisfied.
(a) The monthly income of the family falls below 90 per cent of the gross monthly salary of the employee before death or premature retirement etc.
(b) The monthly income of the family falls below the minimum salary of a Grade-IV employee (in case of Grade-IV employees) or the minimum salary of a Junior Assistant LDC (in case of employees other than those belonging to Grade-IV)."
9. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is receiving a meager amount of pension of about Rs. 8,000-9,000/- per month, which is below the minimum salary of a Grade-IV employee and the petitioner has no other source of income. It has been submitted that, in fact, there is no basis for the DLC to come to the conclusion that the petitioner's income from other sources is Rs. 25,000/- per month. As far as the land is concerned, it is submitted that the said land had been sold by the petitioner because of financial hardships after the death of her husband.
10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record.
11. This Court has perused the proceeding of the DLC meeting held on 01.06.2015. While perusing the said proceeding, it has been observed that while the DLC recommended other claimants for appointment to Grade-IV posts under the die-in-harness scheme, the DLC had not considered the details of the amounts received by such applicants' families on account of DCRG, GIS, GPF, Leave salary, etc. on account of the services rendered by the deceased employees, which this Court finds to be unusual.
12. Be that as it may, in the opinion of this Court, Principle 6 contained in the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, is only for the purpose of comparison of the claimants, Page No.# 5/6 when there are more than one claimant, so that the amounts received by them towards provident fund, gratuity, family pension, etc. can be compared to ascertain the financial positions of the applicants and the claimant with the lesser financial resources can be given preference at the time of appointment. It is for the reason that die-in-harness scheme is only in respect of regular Government employees and on the death of a regular employee, the family will be entitled to provident fund, gratuity, family pension, etc. Therefore, unless the aforesaid sources of income are taken into consideration for the purpose of comparison to ascertain the financial position of the claimants, such income of the petitioner, without comparing with the income of the other claimants, cannot be the ground for rejecting the claim as has been done in the present case. It has also been noted that as regards petitioner's claim for appointment to a Grade-IV post, there is no comparison of the petitioner with other claimants. In other words, the case of the petitioner was considered alone with reference to her income and there is no reference to the details of the amounts received by the other claimants under provident fund, gratuity, family pension, etc.
13. This Court also has noted, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that paragraph 9 of the aforesaid Office Memorandum specifically provides that the family of a deceased government employee shall be considered to be in need of immediate financial assistance if the monthly income of the family falls below the minimum salary of a Grade-IV employee. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner's monthly income is more than the monthly salary of a Grade-IV employee. Further, there is no materials, as indicated, for ascertaining that the annual income of the petitioner from other sources is Rs. 25,000/-.
14. Accordingly, for the reasons noted above, this Court holds that the rejection of the petitioner's claim on the grounds mentioned in the proceeding of the DLC, Goalpara, is illegal and the matter is remanded to the DLC, Goalpara, for reconsideration for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. The case of the petitioner shall not be rejected merely on the ground that the petitioner received certain amounts on account of DCRG, GIS, GPF, Leave salary, etc.
15. The petitioner also will be at liberty to submit further documents in support of the dire financial condition which the petitioner is presently in and also to support her claim that she has been looking after her old mother-in-law, i.e., mother of her deceased husband.
16. The reconsideration of the petitioner's case shall be done by the DLC, Goalpara, in its Page No.# 6/6 next meeting and, in any case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the DLC.
17. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in terms of the above observations and directions.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant