Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010035932023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1102/2023 MONIKANCHAN DAS SON OF LATE NRIPEN CHANDRA DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SUWANI GAON, P.O.- JORHAT, DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785001. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781006. 2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY ASSAM DISPUR- 781006. 3:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC) REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785001. 4:THE PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PANJABARI JURIPAR GUWAHATI- 37 ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 5:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CENTRAL JORHAT DEVELOPMENT BLOCK PNRD Page No.# 2/5 CHIPAHIKHOLA JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785700 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K BARUAH, MR. N MAHAJAN,MR A DAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, P AND R.D. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 25.09.2025 Heard Mr. A.K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Chakrabarty, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3; and Ms. K. Phukan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the State Level Committee (SLC hereinafter), dated 02.08.2022, by which the recommendation of the District Level Committee (DLC hereinafter) for being appointed the petitioner on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has applied after four and half years of death of his father. 3. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, namely Nripen Chandra Das, was working as a Junior Engineer at Central Jorhat Development Block, Chipahikhola, Jorhat and on 06.09.2011, he died in harness and at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was minor. Thereafter, on 07.01.2012, the petitioner had submitted an application for being appointed on compassionate ground in any Grade – III post. But, he did not receive any official intimation from the authority concerned. Thereafter, on Page No.# 3/5 16.02.2015, he had submitted another application for being appointed on compassionate ground in any Grade – III post and accordingly, the DLC had recommended his name against a vacant post of Grade – III in the office of the BDO, Central Jorhat Development Block, Chipahikhola, Jorhat. But, the SLC, in its meeting held on 02.08.2022, had rejected the said recommendation on the ground that the petitioner had applied after four and a half years of his father's death. 3.1. Further submission of Mr. Baruah is that the ground so assigned by the SLC is not at all acceptable, inasmuch as at the relevant point of time the petitioner was minor and he was only 16 years 9 months old and that on 07.01.2012, he had applied, for the first time, for being appointed on compassionate ground and at that time, he was 17 years 1 month old. Mr. Baruah further submits that since he has not received any communication from the authority, on 16.02.2015, he had again submitted an application and this time, the DLC had recommended his name, but the same was rejected by the SLC without considering the fact that the petitioner was minor at the time of his father’s death. 3.2. Referring to a decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7965/2022, Mr. Baruah submits that on similar ground, the prayer of the petitioner therein was rejected by the SLC. But, this Court has held that it is an admitted fact that when the father of the petitioner died, he was a minor and the application was made after attaining the age of majority by the petitioner and therefore, it could not be made within one year from the date of death and further held that the requirement of placing the claim of the petitioner within a period of one year is a directory provision as already been held by this Court in a number of judgments and it is for the DLC to examine as to whether the family could Page No.# 4/5 overcome immediate financial hardship because of the death or whether the family is still continuing in an acute financial crisis and thereafter, set aside the finding of the SLC and remanded back the matter to the SLC for fresh consideration. 3.3. Referring to another decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 01/2023, Mr. Baruah submits that relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195, this Court has held that though a post for compassionate appointment cannot be kept reversed, in the event of an applicant is a minor at the time of death and makes an application after attaining majority, the same can also be given its consideration. 4. Per-contra, Mr. Chakrabarty, learned Junior Government Advocate, referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 3, submits that the proposal of the petitioner was rejected by the SLC on the ground of late submission of application by him. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the decisions referred by Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The basic facts of this case are not in dispute. The father of the petitioner died on 06.09.2011, in harness and at the relevant point of time the petitioner was minor and he was only 16 years 9 months old. Thereafter, on 07.01.2012, he had applied for the first time for being appointed on compassionate ground in any Grade – III post and at that time he was 17 years 1 month old and as he has not received any communication, on 16.02.2015, he had again submitted an Page No.# 5/5 application and this time, the DLC had recommended his name against a vacant post of Grade – III in the office of the BDO, Central Jorhat Development Block, Chipahikhola, Jorhat. But, the same was rejected by the SLC on ground of late submission of application by the petitioner. 7. It is to be noted here that when the ground for rejection was considered on the basis of late submission of application by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the same fails to withstand the legal scrutiny and under such circumstances, this Court is inclined to set aside the decision of the SLC dated 02.08.2022 and remand the matter to the SLC for fresh consideration in the light of the decisions of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7965/2022 and W.P.(C) No. 01/2023. 8. 8. The aforesaid exercise has to be carried out within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 9. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a period of 1 (one) week from today. JUDGE Comparing Assistant