Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010172182023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4488/2023 ABHIJIT KALITA S/O- LATE SAILEN KALITA, R/O- VILLAGE- RAMPUR, P.O. RAMPUR, P.S. PALASBARI, PIN- 781132, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT, GUWAHATI, DISPUR- 06 2:THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-06 ASSAM 3:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER FOREST RESOURCES SURVEY DIVISION SANTIPUR GUWAHATI-09 4:THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST RESEARCH EDUCATION AND WORKING PLAN PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37 5:THE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE KAMRUP (M) PIN- 781001 Page No.# 2/6 ASSAM 6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) PIN- 781001 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B P BORAH, MR. J KALITA,DIKSHITA DEKA,MR P J DUTTA,MR H MAZUMDER Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FOREST B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER 20.05.2025 Heard Mr. J Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 5 & 6. None appears for the remaining respondents. Having regard to the projection made by the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage. [2.] This is the second time the petitioner is before this Court. The first writ petition in WP(C) No. 6061/2022 was disposed of vide Order dated 21.11.2022 by directing the respondent authorities to communicate the outcome of the decision held by the District Level Committee (DLC), which held its meeting on 19.06.2018. The petitioner was, thereafter, accordingly communicated the DLC’s Page No.# 3/6 decision dated 19.06.2018 wherein, it was remarked that the application of the petitioner is rejected due to late submission of the application. Mr. J Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, after the father of the petitioner expired/died in harness on 13.02.2015, the petitioner had immediately submitted his application for compassionate appointment. However, a copy of the same was not retained by him, which led him to file his second application. [3.] The learned counsel submits that at any rate, it is not the DLC but the State Level Committee (SLC), who should consider the case of the petitioner since his father was an employee of the Forest Department, working as Forester Grade-I. In this connection, the learned counsel has referred to the Meeting Minutes of the SLC for appointment on compassionate grounds dated 01.04.2015, which was chaired by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Assam in which reference was made to Personnel (B) Department’s U/O No. 215/207 dated 25.06.2007 and the Government’s direction issued vide FRE. 105/2004/246 dated 11.07.2007 wherein, the requirement for recommendation by the DLC for the Forest Department was dispensed with, keeping in mind the fact that an Appointing Authority for the post of Grade-III and Grade-IV in the Forest Department is the PCCF and not the District Level Official. Therefore, it was Page No.# 4/6 stated that the requirement for having a recommendation by the DLC did not apply to the cadre of employees in the Forest Department. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that in view of such instructions, the case of the petitioner should be considered by the SLC and not by the DLC. [4.] The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Order dated 03.04.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 342/2025 (Abdul Kadir Bokshi vs. State of Assam & 4 Ors.) wherein, a number of case were disposed of by a common order. Challenge made by the petitioners therein was to the O.M dated 18.09.2024 by which the scheme for compassionate appointment had been done away with for all those family members of the Government servants, who died in harness prior to 01.04.2017. This Court, by taking into account the proposal made by the learned Advocate General, Assam on an earlier date, which is to the effect that all the applications for compassionate appointment, in relation to the cases which are pending in this Court, challenging the impugned O.M dated 18.09.2024 shall be considered by the concerned authorities on merit. The same would be done by taking into account the various guidelines for compassionate appointment prior to 01.04.2017 that were applicable in the State of Assam and the various decisions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court. Accordingly, the said Page No.# 5/6 bunch of writ petitions was disposed of in terms of the direction passed in paragraph no. 9 of the said judgment which is being abstracted as below:- “9. In view of the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, all the writ petitions that are pending as on today, i.e., 03.04.2025, in the Gauhati High Court, which have put to challenge the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024, are to be decided as follows:- (i) All the applications for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioners shall be considered and disposed of by the concerned DLC/SLC on merit, by taking into consideration the various guidelines prior to 01.04.2017, laid down by the State Government for compassionate appointment and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court. Consequently, the rejection of all compassionate appointments by the DLC/SLC, which have been put to challenge and are pending in the Gauhati High Court as on 03.04.2025, are set aside. (ii) The entire process for considering the various applications for compassionate appointment and the decision to be taken in each case by the concerned authorities, should be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the concerned District Commissioner, who is also the Chairman of the DLC, if the Page No.# 6/6 matter pertains to the DLC. In other cases, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, who is the Chairman of the SLC, if the matter pertains the SLC.” [5.] Considering the above submission, the present writ petition appears to be squarely covered as well and accordingly, the same is being disposed of in terms of paragraph no. 9 of the Order dated 03.04.2025, which is abstracted herein above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant