Gauhati High Court
Pankaj Kumar Mahato vs The State Of Assam & 3 Ors on 2 August, 2017
Author: Arup Kumar Goswami
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami
1
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C) 4504/2017
Sri Pankaj Kumar Mahato,
Son of Late Paspot Mahato,
R/o Ward No. 1, Dhubri, P.O. Dhubri,
District-Dhubri, Assam.
- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Assam,
Represented by the Secretary to the Government of Assam,
Environment and Forest Department,
Dispur, Guwahati-781006.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Force,
Assam,
Panzabari, Guwahati-781006.
3. The Divisional Forest Officer,
Dhubri Division, Dhubri, Assam.
4. The District Level Committee, Dhubri,
Represented by its Chairman, Deputy Commissioner,
Dhubri, Assam.
- Respondents
For the petitioner : Mr. B. J. Ghosh, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. T. C. Chutia, Government Advocate
Date of hearing and order : 02.08.2017
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER
(ORAL)
Heard Mr. B. J. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondents.
2. Having regard to the subject-matter in dispute, this writ petition is disposed of at the motion stage itself without issuing any formal notice.
3. Paspot Mahato, father of the petitioner, died in harness on 23.04.2012 while working as a Chowkidar in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhubri. Praying for an appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner submitted an application on 28.06.2012 to the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhubri. The application submitted by the W P(C) 4504/ 2017 2 petitioner for compassionate appointment was finally considered by the District Level Committee (DLC) on 26.05.2016. The DLC opined that the case of the petitioner could not be recommended as two years' validity period had already been over. The petitioner had put to challenge the aforesaid decision of the DLC by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as WP(C) 7255/2016. On 02.12.2016, the writ said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by the following order:
"Heard Mr. BJ Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner's father died in harness on 23.04.2012, while working as a Chowkidar in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Dhubri. The petitioner submitted an application dated 28.06.2012 for compassionate appointment. The DFO, Dhubri forwarded the petitioner's application to the Conservator of Forest on 04.07.2012, who in turn sent the same to the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 14.08.2012. Subsequently, the petitioner's application was sent by the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to the DFO, Dhubri on 02.04.2016. At long last, the DLC considered the petitioner's application on 26.05.2016, wherein the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that the validity period of the petitioner's application had crossed the 2 years period.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason for the delay in the DLC considering the petitioner's application is due to the fault of the Forest Department as can be seen from the dates quoted above. He also submits that question of the petitioner's application having spent its force does not arise while considering the same in line with the guidelines laid down by this Court.
Mr. G Pegu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that there is no infirmity with the decision of the DLC.
On hearing the learned counsels for the parties, I find that the late consideration of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment has been due to the delay caused by the Forest Department in placing the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment before the DLC concerned. The rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner's application was beyond the 2 years validity period cannot be accepted as the same is a wrong interpretation of the guidelines laid down by this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. Vrs. State of Assam, reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674 and in the case of Sri Ajit Pator & Ors. Vrs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2009 (3) GLT
306. A reading of the guidelines goes to show that the question of an application having spent its force would be applicable only when there were no vacancies W P(C) 4504/ 2017 3 available during the period the application for compassionate appointment was valid. An application for compassionate appointment has to be deemed to be valid for 2 years from the date of its submission provided that the said application is submitted within the time limit prescribed. In the present case, the petitioner has submitted his application for compassionate appointment within the time limit prescribed.
Accordingly, the DLC would have to consider the petitioner's application with respect to the vacancies that arose during the validity period of the application. A perusal of DLC meeting minutes dated 26.05.2016 and the letter dated 27.05.2016 issued by the DFO, Dhubri goes to show that there were vacancies available in the year 2012, 2013 and 2014. Accordingly, the DLC would have to consider the petitioner's application for the vacancies that occurred during the validity of the petitioner's application.
In that view of the matter, the DLC meeting minutes dated 26.05.2016 is hereby set aside to the extent that it relates to the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment, wherein the DLC has rejected the petitioner's application. Accordingly, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall place the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment before the DLC for re-consideration in its next meeting. The DLC shall thereafter consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment with respect to the vacancies that occurred during the period of validity of the petitioner's application.
The DLC shall consider the petitioner's application not later than 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Writ petition stands disposed off accordingly."
4. A perusal of the aforesaid order goes to show that the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner's application was beyond the two years' validity period was not accepted by the Court and it was held that an application for compassionate appointment has to be deemed to be valid for two years from the date of its submission to the DLC provided that the said application was submitted by the applicant within the time limit prescribed. In the aforesaid order dated 02.12.2016, this Court recorded that the application filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment was within the time limit and, accordingly, a direction was issued to the DLC to consider the petitioner's application with respect to the vacancies that had arisen during the validity period of the application. A finding was also recorded by the Court that it was seen from the minutes of the DLC meeting held on 26.05.2016 and the letter dated 27.05.2016, issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhubri, that there were vacancies available during the years 2012, 2013 and 2014.
W P(C) 4504/ 2017 4
5. Pursuant to the direction of the Court issued in the aforesaid order dated 02.12.2016, case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was considered and rejected by the DLC in its meeting held on 10.04.2017 with the following observations:
"In case of Sl. No. 1, namely, Shri Pankaj Kr. Mahato, S/o Late Paspat Mahato, it appears that the applicant has submitted the application on compassionate ground in the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhubri on 28.06.2016 and, accordingly, the same was sent to the PCCF & HOFF, Assam, directly by the said Office but it has been returned by the SLC seeking that the application should be placed formally in the DLC. The DLC examined the proposal and found that the proposal does not fulfill the two important criteria, namely, (a) the deceased Govt. Servant does not have a balance of 3 years of service and (b) the application validity period of 2 years already over as per latest Govt. O.M. Since a fresh O.M. has been issued vide No. ABP.50/2005/ Pt/182 dated 01.06.2015 by the Personnel Deptt., by superseding the all earlier O.M. therefore, the proposal of Sri Pankaj Kr. Mahato may not be recommended.
Name Date of Date of Date of
Death Application Superannuation
Sl.No.1. Shri Pankaj Kr. Mahato 23.04.2012 28.06.2012 31.10.2013
(S/o Lt. Paspat Mahato) (1 yr. 6 M 8 Days)"
6. From the above, it is seen that the case of the petitioner was rejected by the DLC in view of the Government Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 on the ground that the case of the petitioner does not fulfill two conditions incorporated in the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, which are: (a) the deceased Government servant did not have balance of three years of service and (b) the application validity period of two years had already elapsed.
7. It is already noticed that this Court, in its order dated 02.12.2016, had held that the petitioner had submitted his application for compassionate appointment within the time limit prescribed and, accordingly, the Court had set aside the minutes of the meeting of the DLC held on 26.05.2016 by holding that the rejection of the case of the petitioner by the DLC on the ground that two years validity period had expired was on account of wrong interpretation of the guidelines laid down by this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. Vrs. State of Assam, reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674 and in the case of Sri Ajit Pator & Ors. Vrs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2009 (3) GLT 306.
8. That apart, the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment having arisen prior to the issuance of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, the said Office W P(C) 4504/ 2017 5 Memorandum cannot be made applicable while considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.
9. The Supreme Court, in the cases of State Bank of India and others Vs. Jaspal Kaur, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 571, and Canara Bank and Another vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412, had laid down that the scheme governing compassionate appointment at the time of making application for compassionate appointment would govern the claim for compassionate appointment.
10. Admittedly, when the petitioner had submitted his application for compassionate appointment on 28.06.2012, the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 had not seen the light of the day. In that view of the matter, the decision-making process of the DLC, while considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, is vitiated on account of misplaced application of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015.
11. Having regard to the above, the decision taken by DLC in its meeting held on 26.05.2016, rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is set aside with a direction to the DLC to re-consider the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
12. Writ petition stands allowed and disposed of in terms of the above.
JUDGE RK W P(C) 4504/ 2017 6 W P(C) 4504/ 2017