ORDER

Date : 18-04-2022 Heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.

J. K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent in the Police Department of the Government of Assam.

2. The father of the petitioner late Jitendra Sarma, who was working as an th A.B.I. in 19 A.P. (IR) Bn. died in harness on 06.01.2006 and on his death, his wife Runu Devi submitted an application for compassionate appointment within a period of one year from the death of the deceased employee. The said application of the wife of the deceased was not given consideration. At the relevant time when the deceased employee died, the petitioner was a minor. On attaining majority in the year 2012, he submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 07.06.2012. The grievance raised is that the said application of the petitioner was not placed before the concerned DLC for its consideration. It is brought to our notice that by a communication dated 28.07.2014 of the Superintendent of Police, Dibrugarh addressed to the Assistant Inspector General of Police, (W & S), it had been informed that the application of the petitioner could not be placed before the concerned DLC of Dibrugarh district inasmuch as, the application was made after a period of one year from the date of death of the deceased. We take note of that firstly the reason by itself may not be sustainable in law inasmuch as, by the judgment of the Superme Court in Syed Khadim Hussain –vs- State of Bihar and Others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195, it was provided that it would also be permissible for a minor to subsequently make an application for compassionate appointment after attaining majority. Although there may be contrary decision but at the same time, it was also incumbent upon the respondent Superintendent of Police to look into the law from the said point of view. Secondly, the appropriate authority to reject an application for compassionate appointment would be the DLC of the concerned district and not the Superintendent of Police through whom the said application is required to be made.

3. Considering both the aspect, we interfere with the communication dated 28.07.2014 of the Superintendent of Police, Dibrugarh in respect of rejection of the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and direct the respondent authority to place the application of the petitioner before the concerned DLC of Dibrugarh district in its next available meeting.

4. Writ petition stands allowed as indicated above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant