Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH
VIJAY BISHNOI, CJ., KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Sri Darash Mathur, S/o. Late H.S. Mathur and Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Smti. Bina Devi, W/o. Late Atul Nath and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Appeal No.260 Of 2024
Decided On : 20-01-2025
For the Appellants : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Gautam, learned counsel.
For the Respondents: Mr. J. Kalita, learned Counsel.
The court clarified that remarks made by a learned Single Judge are observations and not definitive findings, justifying their expungement when unsupported by evidence.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - The court addressed the issue of whether the appellant misled the court regarding the date of application for compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge's observation was deemed uncalled for as there was no definitive finding of misleading conduct. (Paras 9, 12, 17)
Facts of the case:
The respondent No.1's husband died in harness, prompting her application for compassionate appointment, which was not initially considered by the authorities.
Findings of Court:
The court found no misleading statement in the affidavit and decided to expunge the adverse remark made against the appellant.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the appellant misled the court regarding the application date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the remark made by the learned Single Judge was not justified, as the respondent authorities did not deny the application was made in 2005, only that the records were unavailable.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the adverse remark was expunged.
JUDGMENT :
(Kaushik Goswami, J.)
Heard Mr. K.N Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Gautam, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. This appeal is presented against the order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in I .A. (C) no. 3163/ 2018, whereby the prayer of the appellants for expunging the adverse remarks against them, contained in judgment & order dated 26.09.2016, has been rejected.
3. The facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/ petitioner’s husband died in harness on 02.01.2005 while being employed as a constable in the Forest Department . Accordingly, the respondent No.1/ petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment on 25.11.2005. However, there being no response from the respondent authorities with regard to consideration of the case of the respondent No.1/ petitioner, the respondent No.1/ petitioner filed WP(C) No. 1652 of 2009 before the learned Single Judge, which was disposed of by order dated 27.05.2009 directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the respondent No.1/ petitioner for compassionate appointment as per the directions contained in Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. Vs State of Assam reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674. Despite of the aforesaid direction, the respondent No.1/ petitioner’s case having not been considered in terms of the guidelines laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. (Supra), the respondent No.1/ petitioner filed another writ petition, being WP(C) No. 5079 of 2015.
4. During hearing of the aforesaid writ petition, it was contended on behalf of the Forest Department that the respondent No.1/ petitioner had not submitted her application for compassionate appointment on 25.11.2005, as claimed by her, but only on 08.09.2008. I n view of the aforesaid contention, the learned Single Judge called for the original records and, after perusal of the same, disposed of the said writ petition by judgment & order dated 26.09.2016 with a direction to the respondent authority to consider the case of the respondent No.1/ petitioner for compassionate appointment in the next meeting of the State Level Committee (SLC) .
5. Pertinent that while disposing of the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge observed that “ I n fact, it seems that the respondent No. 2 has been trying to mislead this Court by giving a wrong date while the original records clearly gives inference to the fact that the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment in the year 2005” .
6. Situated thus, the appellant No.1 i.e. Darash Mathur, the then Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & HoFF, Assam (respondent No.2 in WP(C) No. 5079/2015) and appellant No.2 i.e. Shri Bidyut Borthakur, the then Deputy Conservator of Forest, filed an application, being I.A. (C) No. 3163/2018, in WP(C) No. 5079/2015 for expunging the aforesaid remark made against the respondent No.2 in the judgment & order dated 26.09.2016. However, the aforesaid application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 07.06.2024. Accordingly, the present appeal has been preferred against the aforesaid dismissal order.
7. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the adverse remark against the appellant No.1/ respondent No.2 in the judgment & order dated 26.09.2016 was uncalled for and, hence, the order dated 07.06.2024 dismissing the application to expunge such remark from the judgment & order dated 26.09.2016 warrants interference from this Court .
8. Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for respondent no.1 on the other hand submits that the appellant/ respondent No.2 has made wrong statement before this Court and therefore the remark in question warrants no interference from this Court .
9. The issue involved in this appeal is primarily whether the appellant No.1/respondent No.2 had mislead this Court as regards the date of application filed by the respondent No.1/petitioner seeking
