KAMAL ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Also heard Mr. R. M. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, Assam appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

(2.) The petitioner's father, Manzur Ali, was working as an Upper Division Assistant under the Executive Engineer, PWD, Mangaldoi Roads Division when he had proceeded on retirement with effect from 01.06.1997 on medical ground. As per the Office Memorandum dated 09.09.1983 issued by the Government of Assam formulating a policy for considering the cases of eligible family members of Government servants retiring on medical ground for compassionate appointment, the petitioner being the son of Manzur Ali, had filed an application dated 09.6.1997 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. However, the said application filed by the petitioner was not considered by the authorities as a result of which the writ petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing WP(C) No.9112/2003 which was disposed of by this Court by the order dated 02.01.2004 with a direction upon the respondents to consider the application filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment strictly in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 09.09.1983 and take appropriate decision in the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In terms of the order dated 02.01.2004 passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner was considered by the District Level Committee (DLC) and the same was also forwarded to the State Level Committee (SLC) for necessary consideration. However, it appears from the record that the case of the petitioner was rejected by the SLC in its meeting dated 31.10.2015 on the ground that the petitioner had survived for more than 17/18 years after the death of his father and hence, he was not entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. Aggrieved by the said decision of the SLC, the petitioner has moved this Court for the second time by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Y. S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the delay in the matter is not on account of any laches or negligence on the part of the petitioner but solely on account of the fact that the respondents were sitting over the matter. It is not in dispute that the case of the petitioner is genuine and hence, the application filed by the petitioner ought to have been considered on merit rather than rejecting the same purely on some technical ground. In support of his aforesaid submission, Mr. Mannan has relied upon an order dated 25.11.2016 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.7094/2016 [Dhananjoy Barman vs. The State of Assam and 6 others] as well as a reported judgment of this Court in the case of Dipak Das vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2006 (Supp) GLT 95.