Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010012742020 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/440/2020 GOBINDA DAS S/O -LATE RAMKRISHNA DAS, R/O- BILASIPARA, WARD NO. 10, P.O- BILASIPARA, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783348 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT ASSAM REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 3:THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT DHUBRI REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHUBRI P.O AND DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 5:BILASIPARA MUNICIPAL BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN P.O AND P.S- BILASIPARA Page No.# 2/9 DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 6:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER BILASIPARA MUNICIPAL BOARD P.O AND P.S- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 7:THE JUNIOR ENGINEER BILASIPARA MUNICIPAL BOARD P.O AND P.S- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS A BORAH, MS A BORAH,MS. P DAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. A K SARMA,MR D KALITA,MR D KALITA,MR H J TAMULI,MR. A K SARMA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 19-03-2026 Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Das, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. A.K. Sarma, learned counsel representing Bilasipara Municipal Board, i.e. respondent Nos. 5 to 7. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has presented a challenge to an order dated 31-12-2019, issued by the Executive Officer, Bilasipara Municipal Board, i.e. the respondent No. 6, disengaging the petitioner, herein, along with 04 (four) others from their engagement as Muster Roll Worker in the Board on account of Page No.# 3/9 the fact that they were held to be excess Muster Roll Workers. 3. The petitioner in the present writ petition has projected that his father Rama Krishna Das, while working as a Gr-IV employee in the Bilasipara Town Committee, had died-in-harness in the year 2002, leaving behind the family of the petitioner in penury. It is projected that the petitioner had approached the authority of the Bilasipara Town Committee (now Bilasipara Municipal Board) praying for his appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner further projects that it is on the basis of such application that the petitioner came to be engaged as a Night Chowkidar on Muster Roll basis w.e.f. 01-07-2017, vide issuance of an order of engagement dated 05-09-2017. He further projects that said engagement was pursuant to a resolution adopted in this connection by the Bilasipara Town Committee. The petitioner projects that he continued in his services till 19-05-2018, when he came to be disengaged. Thereafter, the petitioner projects that he was again re-engaged as Muster Roll Worker w.e.f. 05-11-2018, as per resolution adopted by the Town Committee. However, the petitioner came to again disengaged as a Muster Roll Worker vide issuance of the impugned order dated 31-12- 2019. The petitioner by projecting that the grounds assigned in the impugned order dated 31-12-2019, that he was an excess Muster Roll Worker was clearly perverse, inasmuch as, after his disengagement the respondent authorities had proposed to engage further Muster Roll Worker. Accordingly, being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner after reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the respondent authorities had not considered Page No.# 4/9 the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds against a sanctioned post, although his initial engagement effected vide order dated 05-09-2017 w.e.f. 01-07-2017, was in fact an engagement so made by recognizing that the family of the petitioner on account of death of his father was in need of a source of income and accordingly, the said appointment is to be construed to be one made by application of the principles for appointment on compassionate grounds. Mr. Biswas submits that the petitioner after having rendered services in the Municipal Board for a considerable period of time came to be disengaged vide order dated 31-12-2019 and the ground assigned, therein, was that the petitioner was an excess Muster Roll Worker. He further submits that from the pleadings brought on record by the Board authorities, it is evident that the petitioner’s services was mandated to be so disengaged from Muster Roll Worker only on the ground that the Board did not have adequate funds to provide for the wages to the petitioner and other Muster Roll Workers disengaged along with the petitioner vide order dated 31-12-2019. Mr. Biswas has submitted that after the disengagement of the petitioner the Board authorities proceeded to effect further engagement in respect of three outsiders on Muster Roll/ fixed pay basis, along with the re-engagement of two ex- employees of the Board. He submits that the said engagement/ reengagement effected in the Board after the disengagement of the petitioner as Muster Roll Worker, would go to reveal that the plea taken by the respondent authorities about lack of fund was just a cover up to legalize the disengagement of the petitioner and as projected by the petitioner in the writ petition, such re-engagement was only for the purpose of engaging persons close to the persons at the helm of affairs of the Board at the relevant point of Page No.# 5/9 time. 5. In view of the above, Mr. Biswas submits that the impugned order dated 31-12- 2019, insofar as, it concerns the petitioner, herein, would mandate interference with further direction to the respondent authorities to reengage the petitioner in Muster Roll capacity. Mr. Biswas also submits that in the event this Court on consideration finds that the order dated 31-12-2019 would not mandate interference, he prays that the Board authorities be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for engagement in future on Muster Roll/ fixed pay basis in the Board in the event such engagement are made, by reckoning the services rendered by the petitioner since the date of his initial engagement, i.e. w.e.f. 01-07-2017 till 31-12-2019. 6. Per contra, Mr. A.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7, has submitted that the plea of the petitioner for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground would not mandate an acceptance, inasmuch as, after the death of the father of the petitioner, his mother was engaged on compassionate ground as Muster Roll Worker and thereafter, her services were regularized. He submits that on the date of the filing of the writ petition, the mother of the petitioner was continuing in her services and accordingly, no further member of the deceased employee was permissible to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 7. Mr. Sarma submits that the resolution adopted by the Board in the matter which has led to the issuance of the impugned order dated 31-12-2019, would go to reveal that such course of action was mandated to be taken by the Board authorities considering the fact that there was dearth of funds in the Board to pay the wages of such Muster Roll Page No.# 6/9 Workers appointed. With regard to the plea raised by the petitioner that after disengagement of the petitioner, the respondent authorities had proceeded to make further engagement on Muster Roll/ fixed pay basis, Mr. Sarma, on instruction, submits that out of the persons named by the petitioner in his additional affidavit dated 03-10- 2020, 03 (three) persons were in fact engaged in the Board, however, such engagement was prior to the date of disengagement of the petitioner. He submits that Pritam Patgiri who was projected to have been engaged by the Board on 14-08-2020 was infact engaged vide order dated 16-02-2019, on purely temporary basis for 89 days in view of the urgent nature of works arising under PMAY(U) scheme and other allied works. With regard to the projection made in respect of Himangshu Roy, Mr. A.K. Sarma submits that the said person was never engaged in the Board in any capacity. With regard to the projected engagement of Kabir Chandra Roy in August, 2020, Mr. Sarma submits that said Kabir Chandra Roy was infact engaged vide an order dated 12-09-2017, on compassionate grounds as a driver. With regard to the re-engagement of Mani Lal Chouhan and Raju Das, Mr. Sarma submits that while Mani Lal Chouhan an ex-employee of the Board was never re-engaged but Raju Das also an ex-employee was so re-engaged for a specific nature of work pertaining to PMAY(U) works. He submits that the nature of works discharged by the petitioner while he was so engaged on Muster Roll basis and the works discharged by Pritam Patgiri, Kabir Chandra Roy and Raju Das are separate and distinct and accordingly, basing on such engagement, which were so made on account of necessity arising for the same in the Board, the petitioner cannot base his claim, thereon. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials Page No.# 7/9 brought on record. 9. The facts noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute and accordingly not reiterated. The petitioner had projected that his initial engagement in the Board was on compassionate grounds. The said contention of the petitioner was disputed by the respondent Board by contending that pursuant to the death of the father of the petitioner, an employee of the Board, the mother of the petitioner was engaged on compassionate grounds, initially on Muster Roll basis, but subsequently regularized. The petitioner had not denied such stand taken by the Board, but had only contended that the remuneration received by his mother was not sufficient to provide for the needs of his family members. The stand of the petitioner would not mandate acceptance as it is a settled position of law that compassionate appointment can be extended to only 01 (one) family member of a deceased employee. The appointment on compassionate grounds having already been extended to the mother of the petitioner, no further appointment is permissible to be extended to any other family member of the family of the petitioner. Accordingly, the contention of the petitioner, that he was engaged on Muster Roll basis on compassionate grounds stands rejected. 10. Having held that the petitioner’s initial appointment cannot be construed to be one so effected on compassionate grounds, this Court would now consider the order dated 31-12-2019, by which the services of the petitioner was dispensed with. This Court has considered the contention raised in the matter by the learned counsel for the parties. The materials coming on record reveals that the services of the petitioner was required to be dispensed with, inasmuch as, he was found to be an excess Muster Roll worker working in Page No.# 8/9 the Board. Further the Board had to take the said steps on account of the financial constraints faced by it. The petitioner being only engaged on Muster Roll basis, which itself indicates that such engagement was on account of necessity arising for hands to do the work involved, the said necessity existing having come to an end and the Board being faced with financial constraints, this Court would not be in a position to direct the Board authorities to continue to engage the petitioner, herein. Further the short engagement as effected in case of the petitioner, herein, would also not mandate a direction for regularization of his services, inasmuch as, no scheme is found to be in existence, in this connection, in the respondent Board. Accordingly, the order dated 31-12-2019, in the considered view of this Court, would not mandate any interference. 11. Having examined the order dated 31-12-2019, this Court would now examine the contention raised by the petitioner that after he was released from the Muster Roll service of the Board, the Board has proceeded to effect engage other on Muster Roll basis and accordingly, the petitioner contends that the ground assigned for the release of the petitioner from the Muster Roll services of the Board is clearly perverse. The said issue need not detain this Court any further, inasmuch as, the respondent Board, has in their affidavit dealt with the said matter and clarified that the engagements made were so made prior to the release of the petitioner from his Muster Roll service and the same was for specific works arising in the Board and the same had no connection with the decision arrived at to release the petitioner from his Muster Roll service. The petitioner has not disputed the said position and further had not alleged any malafide against any officials of the respondent Board in releasing him from his Muster Roll service. Accordingly, on the Page No.# 9/9 said count also the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate any interference. 12. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court provides that in future in the event there is a need for engagement of hands on Muster Roll/ Casual or under any similar category, the case of the petitioner be considered provided he is found suitable for the works for which such engagement is contemplated. The release of the petitioner from the services of the respondent Board vide order dated 30-01-2019, be not held against him under such circumstances. 11. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant