Court finds State Level Committee applied inconsistent criteria, grants Rs. 1,00,000 to petitioner Udit Narayan Purkayastha
In a significant judgment, the Gauhati High Court has addressed the issue of discriminatory practices in compassionate appointments by the State Level Committee (SLC). Presiding over the case, Mr. N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J., ruled in favor of the petitioner, Udit Narayan Purkayastha, who challenged the rejection of his application for a compassionate appointment following the death of his father, a government servant. The Court found that the SLC employed different criteria for evaluating the applications of Purkayastha and another applicant, Seema Deb, leading to an unjust rejection of Purkayastha’s application.
The case stems from the death of Purkayastha's father, Uday Sankar Purkayastha, who passed away in May 2012 while employed as a Jugali in the Department of Information & Public Relations, Barak Valley Region, Silchar. Purkayastha promptly applied for a compassionate appointment in July 2012. Despite a favorable recommendation from the District Level Committee (DLC) in February 2014, his application was ultimately rejected by the SLC in October 2019 due to an alleged lapse in validity, citing a lack of vacancies.
Conversely, the SLC approved Seema Deb's application, whose husband died in June 2013, on the grounds of vacancy availability and the application being valid. The Court observed that both applications surpassed the two-year validity threshold, yet the SLC applied inconsistent yardsticks for each case. This discrepancy led to the approval of Deb's application, while Purkayastha's was dismissed.
Highlighting the purpose of compassionate appointments, the judgment referenced the case of State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari, underscoring the need for immediate relief to the family of deceased government servants. The Court acknowledged the 13-year gap since Purkayastha's father's death as rendering the claim stale and unsuitable for reconsideration.
Acknowledging the improper handling of Purkayastha’s claim by the SLC, the Gauhati High Court awarded him Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for the deprivation he faced. The Court instructed the respondent authorities to disburse the compensation within two months, refraining from interfering with the appointment of Deb, who has completed four years of service.
This judgment reinforces the principle of equality and fairness in public service appointments, emphasizing the importance of uniform criteria in evaluating compassionate appointment applications.
Bottom Line:
Compassionate appointment - Application must be considered within the prescribed time frame set out in the policy; delay causing the application to lose its validity cannot be treated with a different yardstick for different applicants.
Statutory provision(s): Service Law - Compassionate Appointment, State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 SCC OnLine(SC) 219, Achyut Ranjan Das v. State of Assam, 2006 (4) GLT 674
Udit Narayan Purkayastha v. State Of Assam, (Gauhati) : Law Finder Doc id # 2843337
