DIPAK DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge made in this writ petition is in respect of the intimation sent to the petitioner rejecting his claim for appointment on compassionate ground. The facts narrated in the writ petition and consequential rejection of the prayer for compassionate appointment depicts total non- application of mind on the part of the respondents. Although the respondents themselves are guilty of delay in the matter, have attributed the same to the petitioner, which is unbecoming of a model employer.

(2.) The father of the petitioner while was serving as a Roller driver under the respondents died on 7.9.1994 leaving behind the present petitioner, his brother and their widow mother. The wife of the deceased employee who was only 34 years of age at the time of death of her husband, with the burden of her two minor sons aged 13 and 8 years respectively applied for her appointment on compassionate ground and her application was forwarded by the competent authority on 9.11.1995. The proposal was returned back by communication dated 24.7.1996 asking for vacancy position. Thereafter, interdepartmental correspondences were made. In view of the delay in appointing the mother of the petitioner, she made a prayer for appointment of her son, the petitioner. Making various correspondences, the respondents processed the case of the petitioner.

(3.) By Annexure-H communication dated 22.12.1999 making a request for appointment of two Roller handymen, the case of the petitioner was further processed by Annexure-I letter dated 28.6.2000 addressed to the Chief Engineer, PWD, (Roads) by the Executive Engineer, PWD, NH Division. Prior to that by Annexure-J letter dated 10.5.2000, the Additional Chief Engineer, PWD (Planning) intimated the Secretary to the Government of Assam, PWD about the vacant post of Roller Handyman and requested to convey approval for appointment of the petitioner.