AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. B. Chetry, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Education Elementary
Department as well as Ms. D.D. Barman, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
The husband of the petitioner who was serving as an Assistant Teacher against the permanent post in Mermukh L.P. School under Narayanpur
Education Block died-in-harness on 24.11.2015 in a motor vehicle accident. On his death, the petitioner submitted an application for
compassionate appointment on 16.03.2016 before the Block Elementary Education Officer, Lakhimpur district. The said application for
compassionate appointment was placed before the DLC of Lakhimpur district on 24.02.2017 and by the resolution of the said committee, the
case of the petitioner was rejected for being over aged. The rejection order of the DLC also records that the date of birth of the petitioner is
25.02.1975 , meaning thereby that as on 24.02.2017, when the rejection was made, the petitioner was approximately 42 years of age.
It is stated by the learned state counsel that the upper age limit for government service is 43 years and therefore, the rejection of the case of the
petitioner was made on a factually incorrect basis. Moreover, this Court in its judgment and order dated 24.08.2017 in WP(C) No.2989/2010 in
paragraph-7 had held that the relevant office memorandum providing the upper age limit for government service if made applicable in respect of
compassionate appointment also, the same would defeat the very object of the claim for compassionate appointment for providing immediate
succor to the dependants of a deceased employee. Relevant praragraph-7 of the said judgment is as follows:-
That apart, which is more important looking at the policy behind the scheme of compassionate appointment, the Office Memorandum dated
4.1.92 cannot be made applicable for compassionate appointment. The object of the compassionate appointment scheme being to provide
immediate succour to the family of the deceased, if the concept of age bar applicable in the case of normal direct recruitment is imported in to the
concept of compassionate appointment, it is possible in many cases that the spouse of the deceased will be overaged when a case for making
compassionate appointment arises. For example, if a deceased employee dies at the age of 55 years, leaving behind his widow, who is 50 years
old, by application of the office Memorandum dated 4.1.92 she would not be entitled to get compassionate appointment also. In my opinion, to
accept the contention of the respondents-authorities in this behalf will defeat the very object of providing immediate succour to the dependants of
the deceased.
For both the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the view that the rejection of the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by the
DLC of Lakhimpur district in its meeting dated 24.02.2017 is not sustainable either on facts or on law.
In such view of the matter, the rejection contained in the minutes of the DLC, Lakhimpur dated 24.02.2017 in respect of the petitioner is set
aside. The matter is remanded back and the respondent No.3 shall take necessary steps for placing the same before the next available DLC of
Lakhimpur district for a fresh consideration.