Back
Gauhati High Court
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Runu Talukdar - Appellant
Versus
Sumeet Jerath and ors - Respondent
Cont. Case (C) No.79 of 2012
Decided On : 07-04-2014
Contempt Laws – Contempt Proceeding – Dying in Harness – Case of the petitioner is that her husband Uttam Talukdar was a Lower Division Assistant (LDA) serving in the office of District Transport Officer (DTO), Kamrup, Guwahati. Uttam Talukdar died in harness – Petition seeks initiation of contempt proceeding against the respondents for alleged willful and deliberate violation of the order of this court passed in WP(C) – Held, Question whether petitioner has subsequently remarried or not is really immaterial in the facts and circumstances of the case – Eligibility of the candidate such as the petitioner has to be reckoned with reference to the date of making the application and not with reference to the date of consideration – Husband of the petitioner expired and she submitted application immediately thereafter which was forwarded by the DTO to the Commissioner – On that day, admittedly she had not remarried – Even if the petitioner had remarried in the interregnum (which she denies), that would not be a ground for rejecting her case – It cannot be the law that an unmarried daughter or a widow who applies for compassionate appointment should remain a spinster or a widow for the rest of her life to enable her to get compassionate appointment or to sustain such appointment – Such an approach would be opposed to our constitutional objective of womens empowerment to the fullest extent and also abhorrent to modern thinking – Contempt Petition Disposed of.
2. Case of the petitioner is that her husband Uttam Talukdar was a Lower Division Assistant (LDA) serving in the office of District Transport Officer (DTO), Kamrup, Guwahati. Uttam Talukdar died in harness on 8.10.2004.
3. Uttam Talukdar was the sole bread earner of the family. On his sudden demise, petitioner faced grave financial hardship. In such circumstances, she submitted an application dated 10.11.2004 before the Commissioner of Transport, Assam seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Along with her application, she submitted copies of supporting documents. The said application of the petitioner was forwarded to the Commissioner by the DTO, Kamrup, Guwahati along with a forwarding letter dated 17.11.2004.
4. With the grievance that case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was not being considered, petitioner approached this court by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.4956/2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court by order dated 16.5.2011 directing the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in terms of the guidelines formulated in Achyut Ranjan Das v. State of Assam, 2006 (4) GLT 674 and Faziron Nessa v. State of Assam, 2010 (4) GLT 340.
5. By order dated 10.6.2011 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transport Department, case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that her application seeking appointment on compassionate ground was received by the department after a gap of more than five years and as such the application had lost its force by then.
6. On 2.3.2012, notice on the contempt petition was issued.
7. In the affidavit filed by respondent No.3 on 5.6.2012, it is admitted that application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was forwarded to the Commissioner of Transport by the DTO on 17.11.2004 but it is stated that all the relevant documents were not enclosed. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari furnished financial status report of the petitioner on 25.5.2010 to the Government.
8. An affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4 on 2.12.2013. It is stated that though the case of the petitioner was rejected by the Government on 10.6.2011, case of the petitioner was placed before the District Level Committee (DLC), Nalbari on 9.4.2012. The DLC recorded that earlier there was no DLC. So the proposal of the petitioner was directly sent to the Government which was rejected. Following the High Court order, case of the petitioner was reconsidered and as per proposal received from the DTO, Nalbari, DLC recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on special consideration.
9. Respondent No.3 has filed another affidavit on 10.2.2014. It is admitted that application of the petitioner was forwarded by the DTO, Kamrup on 17.11.2004 but it is stated that it was not supported by all relevant documents. Commissioner of Transport submitted the required documents to the Government on 16.6.2010. Therefore, case of the petitioner could not be placed before the State Level Committee (SLC) in its last meeting held on 22.6.2009. Moreover, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari furnished the financial status report of the petitioner only on 25.5.2010. Respondent No.3 has admitted that the DLC, Nalbari in its meeting held on 9.4.2012 recommended the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. It is further stated that the recommendation of the DLC was thereafter placed before the SLC but the SLC in its meeting held on 6.7.2013 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that she has remarried after the death of her husband.
10. I have heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U. Rajbongshi, learned counsel for respondent No
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
