WP(C) 4087/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The grievance expressed in the instant petition pertains to the inactio n of the State respondents in processing the petitioner’s claim for his appointm ent to the State services in terms of the notification dated 22.6.2004. I have heard Mr Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ghosh , learned State counsel. The facts in short necessary to be noticed are that the petitioner’s bro ther Narayan Goswami(since deceased) was killed on 10.01.2002 by extremists. In terms of the Assam Public Service(Appointment of family members of persons kill ed by extremists/terrorists) Rules,1992 then in force, an amount of Rs.1.00 lak hs as ex-gratia grant was released in favour of the family and the same was re ceived by the petitioner’s brother. The petitioner, under the same Rules, applie d for appointment as comprehended therein. He followed it up with repeated req uests but in vain. In the meantime, the Rules got repealed by the notificatio n No.ABP-121/92/Pt-V/136 dated 22.6.2004 issued by the Commissioner and Secretar y to the Government of Assam, Personnel (B) Department , providing for the benef icial measures to be extended to the affected families. The same envisaged pr eference to the affected persons certified for recruitment to Government and se mi-government jobs and also to provide alternative means of livelihood to the members of the families of victims of extremist violence. The quantum of ex-gra tic was enhanced to Rs.3.00 lakhs. The entitlement for the enhanced ex-gratia grant, however, was limited to the next of kin of persons killed in extremists/T errorist violence in the State on or after 22.6.2004. The stand of the answering respondents in their counter in substance is that as the 1992 Rules have, in the meantime , been repealed, there is no sco pe for consideration of the petitioner’s case thereunder. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. A plain reading of th e notification dated 22.6.2004 reveals that the 1992 Rules stood repealed from that date and the provisions thereof were substituted by those contained in the said notification. There is nothing to decipher therefrom that any process for appointment initiated on the basis of the 1992 Rules has been saved. On t he other hand, thereby all applications received by the respective Deputy Commi ssioners were directed to be returned to them. The State counter, however, does not categorically controvert the petiti oner’s assertion that an application had been made under the old Rules for provi ding him with appointment as envisaged thereunder. In my view, as such a reque st was pending on the date on which the old Rules were repealed, having regar d to the salutary object thereof, such claim cannot be rendered nonest in law b y the repealing notification. On the other hand, the direction contained in the notification dated 22.6.2004 to return the pending applications before the Dep uty Commissioner, in my opinion, reveals the intention of the authorities conc erned to have the same processed afresh in terns of the parameters contained th erein. The fact that the next of kin of Narayan Goswami(since deceased) was sa nctioned Rs.1.00 lakh as ex-gratia payment establish the point that his family, at the relevant time, was governed by the old Rules. In that view of the matter , I am of the opinion that the petitioner’s claim for a preferential treatment for appointment also visualized in the current notification , deserves consider ation in the hands of the respondent authorities. In that view of the matter, this petition stands closed with a direction to the Commissioner and Secretary, Personnel(B) Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6 , respondent No.2 and the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta , respondent No.3 to tak e early steps to revive the process pertaining to thepetitioner’s request for appointment and to complete the same expeditiously inn terms of the notificatio n dated 22.6.2004. As the petitioner’s brother had been killed on 10.1.2002 and he had been waiting in expectation, it is further ordered that the process indic ted hereinabove should be completed within two months from the date of receipt o f the certified copy of this order. Needles to say, the consideration of the pe titioner’s claim would be subject to the vacancies available earmarked for the p urpose as well as the seriality of the request. No costs.