Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010134952023 2026:GAU-AS:9816 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3607/2023 MOYEZ UDDIN SK SO KURAN ALI SK, R/O VILL-GOLAPERALGA, P.O. AND P.S.-FAKIRGANJ, DIST-DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (B) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC) REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301 Page No.# 2/5 5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DHUBRI P.O. AND DIST-DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78330 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S ISLAM, MR A HAWARI,MR. T A RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, SC, FINANCE,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 17/07/2026 Heard Mr. S Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Dhar, learned Standing counsel, Public Works Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 5 & 6, Mr. J K Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 & 4 and Mr. R Barpujari, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department, appearing for the respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for appointing him as a Grade-IV employee on compassionate grounds under the provisions of the Assam Public Service (Appointment of Family Members of Persons Killed by Extremist/Terrorist) Rules, 1992. 3. It is projected in the writ petition that the elder brother of the petitioner, Sahab Uddin Sk., was killed by unknown extremist on 04.03.2001. Pertaining to the death of the brother of the petitioner, a police case was registered, being Chapor P.S. Case No. Page No.# 3/5 23/2001. 4. It is projected that the petitioner, being eligible for appointed as a Grade-IV employee, had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds under the provisions of the Assam Public Service (Appointment of Family Members of Persons Killed by Extremist/Terrorist) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter, referred to as the Rules of 1992) and his case was considered by the District Level Scrutiny Committee in its meeting held on 30.11.2017. 5. It is further projected that a recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the recommendation made in this connection by the District Level Scrutiny Committee and the matter was forwarded by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dhubri, AACP Division to the Chief Engineer, PWD Roads. However, no further steps having been taken in the matter, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. At the outset, this Court notices that the present writ petition is not instituted praying for appointment on compassionate grounds under the scheme in vogue in the State for appointment of the relatives of Government servants, who die-in-harness. The present writ petition has been instituted claiming such appointment by the petitioner, who is the brother of a Government servant, who was killed by extremist on 04.03.2001, by invoking the provisions of the said Rules of 1992. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that Rules of 1992 was repealed on 22.06.2004. 9. It is submitted that applications received prior to repeal of the said Rules of 1992, were being considered. It is further projected that after the repeal of the Rules Page No.# 4/5 of 1992, the members of the family of the person killed in extremist violence, was being extended with monetary compensation. The Rules of 1992, being repealed on 22.06.2004, it is to be seen as to whether the application submitted by the petitioner was so submitted prior to the repeal of the said Rules. 10. The brother of the petitioner is projected to have been killed by extremist on 04.03.2001. The petitioner in the present writ petition has brought on record his matriculation certificate and therein, his date of birth has been reflected as 01.01.1998. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot be expected to have submitted his application before attaining the age of 18 years, which he had so attained only in the year 2016. Accordingly, the application submitted by the petitioner admittedly was not so submitted prior to the repeal of the Rules of 1992, i.e., prior to 22.06.2004. 11. Accordingly, in terms of the policy decision adopted by the Government in this connection, the application submitted by the petitioner would not have mandated any consideration under an already repealed Rules, by the District Level Scrutiny Committee in its meeting held on 30.11.2017. Accordingly, the recommendations made by the District Level Scrutiny Committee for appointment of the petitioner against a Grade-IV vacant post, is found by this Court to have been so made without any jurisdiction. 12. In view of the above discussion, the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance and accordingly, the writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost. 13. However, dismissal of the present writ petition would not prevent the family members of Late Sahab Uddin Sk. to approach the respondent authorities for being authorized compensation for his death on account of extremist violence, if such compensation has not already been authorized to the family of Late Sahab Uddin Sk. Page No.# 5/5 14. The instructions furnished by Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, is kept on record and marked as ‘X’ for the purpose of identification. JUDGE Comparing Assistant