Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010152282023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3982/2023 MITHU NATH S/O LT. MANKUMAR NATH, VILL.- TAPANG PART- II, P.O.- CHIBITA BICHIA, P.S.- SILCHAR (SADAR), DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788150. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF HOME AFFAIRS, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6. 2:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HAILAKANDI DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788151. 3:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY- 06. 4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC) FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788151 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S B LASKAR, MS D DUTTA,MS N KALITA,MR. H A Page No.# 2/6 LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Linked Case : WP(C)/6990/2021 MITHU NATH S/O LT. MANKUMAR NATH VILL-TAPANG PART-II P.O.-CHIBITA BICHIA P.S.-SILCHAR (SADAR) DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788150 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF HOME HOME AFFAIRS DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 2:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HAILKANDI DIST-HAILKANDI ASSAM 3:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY-06 4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC) HAILAKANDI FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILKANDI DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788151 Page No.# 3/6 ------------ Advocate for : MR. S B LASKAR Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM ORDER 21.05.2025 Heard Mr. S. B. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in both these writ petitions. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the State. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows. The petitioner’s father, who was a Grade-III employee and was serving as an AB Constable in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi, died in harness on 08.01.1994 leaving behind the petitioner and his widow as surviving legal heirs. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was a minor. However, upon attaining majority the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 13.06.2007. His application was considered by the District Level Committee, Hailakandi vide resolution dated 07.10.2009 whereby, the petitioner was recommended for appointment against a post of AB constable. The matter was thereafter placed before the State Level Committee but when no action was taken in respect thereof the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.6990/2021. 3. The respondents filed counter-affidavit in the aforesaid writ petition inter- alia contending that the SLC had rejected the application of the petitioner vide resolution dated 19.12.2011 on the ground that the application was belated. Page No.# 4/6 4. According to the petitioner, no intimation about the rejection of his application by the SLC was ever furnished to him and he came to know about the same, for the first time, only from the counter-affidavit filed by the State in WP(C) No.6990/2021. Accordingly, WP(C) No.3982/2023 was instituted by the petitioner assailing the decision of the SLC as recorded in its minutes of meeting dated 19.12.2011. 5. The respondent No.1 has filed affidavit-in-opposition in WP(C) No.3982/2023. The averments made in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit would be pertinent in this case and therefore, the same are being reproduced herein below for ready reference :- “5. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition the deponent begs to state that the proposal for appointment on compassionate ground in respect of Shri Mithu Nath, S/o Lt. Man Kumar Nath was received along with duly signed Checklist. From the available records it is found that father of the petitioner Late Man Kumar Nath expired on 08/01/1994 as per the death certificate and as per the checklist the date of application of the petitioner is 13/06/2007. The minutes of DLC meeting held on 07/10/2009 reveals that the petitioner was recommended for the post of AB Constable. On 19/12/2011, the meeting of SLC was held but SLC could not recommend the candidate for appointment on compassionate ground due to the following reason :- “Late submission of application, applied after one year from the death of the Govt. servant.” However, Hon’ble High Court in judgment dated 01/12/2022 passed in WQP(C) 7059/2021 (Rituraj Chetia Vs. SoA & ors) had observed that in case of Compassionate Appointment the scheme prevailing on the date of death of the employee would govern the claim. Hence, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court mentioned above and the applicable O.M. of that period, this department has Page No.# 5/6 decided for placing the case of Sri Mithu Nath before the next SLC.” 6. From the above stand of the respondent No.1, as reflected in para 5 of the counter-affidavit, it is clear that the respondents are willing to act in terms of the judgment and order of this Court passed in the case of Rituraj Chetia Vs. State of Assam and others wherein it has been held that in case of compassionate appointment the scheme prevailing on the date of death of the employee would govern the claim and consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground even at this point of time. 7. Mr. R. Dhar, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam submits that considering the lapse of time in this case, the claim of the petitioner would stand extinguished not only under several decisions of the Supreme Court but also judgment of this Court and therefore, regardless of the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered. I am afraid, the above submission of Mr. Dhar cannot be accepted by this Court. Once the State has taken a stand by filing counter-affidavit agreeing to consider the case of the writ petitioner, it will be bound by the above stand. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate cannot be permitted to argue in a manner which is contrary to the stand projected in the counter-affidavit filed by the State. In such circumstances, it will also not be necessary for this Court to issue any direction to the State to consider the case of the petitioner. To that extent the legal hurdles referred to by Mr. Dhar would also not be of any significance in the facts of the present case. 8. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, this writ petition is disposed of by providing that the case of the petitioner be processed Page No.# 6/6 in the light of the stand taken by the State as reflected in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit. Consequential actions be initiated as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant