JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Deba Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. T. C. Chutia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5. I have also heard Mr. A. J. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2. The case of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 01.02.2014 while working as a Grade-IV (peon) employee in the Office of the respondent No.4. Thereupon, the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on 03.03.2014 in the Office of the respondent No.4 which was thereupon forwarded on 16.06.2014 to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta who is the Chairman of the District Level Committee (DLC) for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. The District Level Committee vide a recommendation dated 25.02.2016 applying the Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2009 which was the scheme prevalent at the time of the date of death of the employee as well as the date of application of the petitioner had recommended the case of the petitioner for the post of Grade-IV against a single vacant post occurred in the year 2014. However, the respondent No.2 i.e. the State Level Committee in its meeting dated 18.01.2020 deferred the consideration of the case of the petitioner on the ground for want of vacancy reserved for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner being aggrieved has assailed the decision of the State Level Committee by way of the instant writ petition.

3. This Court vide an order dated 13.03.2019 issued notice making it returnable by 4 (four) weeks. None of the respondents except the respondent No.5 which is the District Level Committee has filed their affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.5, it has been mentioned that the case of the petitioner was placed in the then DLC held on 25.02.2016 and recommended for appointment in Grade-IV post. It was further mentioned that his proposal was forwarded to the Commissioner of Industries & Commerce, Bamunimaidan, Guwahati vide its office letter No.BPE.14/2016/9 dated 24.06.2016 for taking necessary action for placing the proposal in the next SLC for consideration.

4. This Court has perused the materials on record. In the backdrop of the above, this Court would also like to take into account the respective contentions made by the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to various judgments of the Supreme Court i.e. in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Amit Shrivas reported in (2020) 10 SCC 496, Indian Bank and Others Vs. Promila and Another reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729 as well as the judgment in the case of Secretary to Government Department of Education (Primary) and Others Vs. Bheemesh alias Bheemappa reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1264 had submitted that the law has been clearly stated by the Supreme Court in the said judgments to the effect that the scheme which is to be made applicable would be the scheme which was applicable as on the date of death of the deceased employee.

5. The learned counsel therefore referred to paragraph Nos. 17, 18 and 19 of the judgment in the case of Bheemesh alias Bheemappa (supra) as well as paragraph Nos. 18 to 20 of the judgment in the case of Indian Bank (supra). This Court finds it relevant to take note of the said 2 (two) judgments more particularly taking into consideration the issue involved herein. The Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank (supra) had observed in Paragraph Nos. 18, 19 and 20 while deciding the applicability of the relevant scheme observed that it is only the relevant scheme prevalent on the date of demise of the employee which has to be considered to be applicable and it is not for this Court to substitute a scheme or subtract from the terms thereof in judicial review. Paragraph Nos. 18 to 20 of the said judgment in the case of Indian