ORDER

Date : 13-09-2021 Heard Mr. S.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel for the PHE Department appears for respondent nos.2, 5 and 6 and also heard Ms. A. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1, 3 and 4.

2. In brief the case of the petitioner is that his father expired on 22.01.2017 while working as a regular Khalasi, Grade-IV employee in the Kadamtala Public Health Engineering Department under Bilasipara Sub-division under Dhubri Division, Assam. On 16.05.2017, the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment in the office of the respondent no.5, but it is alleged that the respondent no.5 had not forwarded the case of the petitioner before the DLC and accordingly, aggrieved petitioner is before the Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the contents of office memorandum No.ABP.50/2006/Pt./182 dated 01.06.2015, it is prescribed as follows:

‘For the purpose of these instructions, a Government servant means a Government servant appointed on regular basis and not one working on daily wage or casual or apprentice or on ad-hoc or contract or reemployment basis. However, the confirmed work-charged staff will be covered by the term ‘Government servant’.

4. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the father of the petitioner was a confirmed work-charge Grade-IV employee, he would be covered by the term ‘government servant’ and therefore the candidature of the petitioner was required to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.

5. The learned Standing counsel for the Public Health Engineering Department has referred to instructions dated 26.11.2019 and it is submitted that the father of the petitioner was a muster roll worker and his service was regularized from muster roll worker to regular Khalasi vide T.O. Order No.102/2005-06 and that the post so regularized was completely temporary and personal.

6. From the hereinabove referred quoted contents of the office memorandum dated 01.06.2015, there is no dispute that the father of the petitioner was a confirmed work-charged employee was appointed as a regular Khalasi, which is a permanent post. There is nothing contained in the said OM dated 01.06.2015 that if the post held by the employee was personal, he would be excluded from the definition of ‘government servant’. Accordingly, the Court finds merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the father of the petitioner falls within the definition of ‘government servant’ as provided in the OM dated 01.06.2015. Accordingly, the present writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed.

7. Accordingly, the respondent no. 5 is directed to forward the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment dated 16.05.2017 to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri (respondent no.3) within a period of 2(two) weeks from the date of receipt of a downloaded copy of this order. The respondent no.5 is at liberty to verify the order from the website of the Court and act accordingly.

8. The respondent nos.3 and 4 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri and the DLC, Dhubri are directed to consider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on its own merit and not to reject the same on the ground that the application had spent its force because the application of the petitioner was withheld by the respondent no.5 without any legal or lawful cause and in total disregard of the OM dated 01.06.2015.

9. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

10. The parties are left to bear their own cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant