Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 24 September, 2025
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010048522025
2025:GAU-AS:13253
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1370/2025
SMTI. BOBITA PEGU
W/O- LATE RUPI KANTA PEGU, R/O- VILL.- MAJULI PAR, P.O. LAIMEKURI,
P.S. JONAI, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, HANDLOOM TEXTILE AND SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE
ASSAM
KHANAPARA
GHY-22.
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
DHEMAJI
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ALI, MS. M KHATUN
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, HANDLOOM AND TEXTILE
Page No.# 2/6
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 24.09.2025 Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate as well the learned standing counsel for the Handloom, Textile and Sericulture Department, representing all the respondents.
2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband Late Rupi Kanta Pegu, while working as Grade-IV employee in the Office of the Superintendent of Sericulture, Jonai, Dhemaji, had died- in-harness on 25.05.2010. The application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was taken up by the District Level Committee in its meeting held on 27.06.2011, and the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment on compassionate ground. As the appointment of the petitioner did not materialize, she had filed WP(C) 1978/2016, agitating her non-appointment on compassionate ground and this Court by order dated 26.04.2016, had issued a direction that the case of the petitioner be placed before the State Level Committee (SLC) within a period of 30 (thirty) days and the result of the State Level Committee be communicated to the petitioner.
3. Despite the said order dated 26.04.2016, being communicated to the respondents, the State Level Committee (SLC for short) had rejected the proposal for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, The same was brought to the notice of this Court, which is recorded in the order dated 09.09.2016, passed in Cont. Case (C) 444/2016. Moreover, by communication dated 30.07.2016, the petitioner was informed that her claim for her Page No.# 3/6 appointment in compassionate ground was placed before the SLC on 01.03.2013 and 30.01.2016, respectively, but her name could not be recommended.
4. The aggrieved petitioner again approached this Court and this Court by order dated 30.10.2017, passed in WP(C) 6440/2016, took note of the minutes of the SLC held on 01.03.2013 and 30.01.2016 and issued a direction that the case of the petitioner be given a fresh consideration by the SLC strictly by following the provisions of law as laid down in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das v. State of Assam & Ors., (2006) 4 GLT 674.
5. As the case of the petitioner was not considered, the petitioner filed a contempt petition, being Cont. Case (C) 477/2018, and this Court by order dated 04.01.2023, had directed that recommendation of the District Level Committee (DLC for short) dated 27.06.2011 be placed before the next SLC. By a letter dated 30.11.2024 (Annexure-Y), the petitioner was informed that her candidature was approved by the minutes of the SLC dated 02.05.2023 for the post of Grade-IV with a recommendation to forward the proposal to another Administrative Department under Clause-15 of the O.M. No.ABP.50/2006/Pt/182, dated 01.06.2015, as the vacancy position of Grade-III and Grade-IV post for appointment on compassionate ground under the Handloom, Textiles and Sericulture Department was NIL and the petitioner was further informed that most of Departments have informed that their vacancy position was NIL and therefore, she has not been appointed till date despite of a candidature being approved by the SLC.
6. It appears that the petitioner has also filed contempt petition, which was registered as Cont Case (C) 689/2024, where a notice was issued by order dated 13.12.2024.
Page No.# 4/6
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite several orders of this Court as well the SLC approval vide meeting dated 02.05.2023, the petitioner has not been appointed. Hence, this present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. The learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate has submitted that in the meantime, the Govt. of Assam, vide O.M. dated 18.09.2024, the Govt. of Assam has withdrawn the compassionate appointment scheme and same is substituted by another scheme called "Compassionate Family Pension Scheme ".
9. On considering the entirety of the matter, notwithstanding that there are orders of this Court, directing the case of the petitioner be taken up by the SLC and it is also noted that the SLC in its meeting dated 02.05.2023, had recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Nonetheless, the Court also takes note of the fact that in the communication dated 30.11.2024, referred above, the vacancy position of Grade-III and Grade-IV for appointment on compassionate ground in the Handloom, Textile and Sericulture Department was NIL and the most of the other Departments have communicated their vacancy position as NIL and in the meanwhile, the scheme of appointment on compassionate ground has since been done away with by the State Government.
10. Accordingly, the Court is of the considered opinion that on the scheme being withdrawn by the Government, the petitioner would not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. Moreover, as per contents of the O.M. No. ABP.104/2024/90, dated 18.09.2024, the "Compassionate Family Pension Scheme in lieu of Compassionate Appointment" is made applicable for those employees who died in harness on or after 01.04.2017, Therefore, under the altered position, the petitioner would not be entitle to any relief in this writ Page No.# 5/6 petition.
11. Under such circumstances, the Court is inclined to refer to paragraph no. 7.5 of the decision of Supreme Court of India in the Case of State of West Bengal V. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors., (2023) 0 Supreme SC 191 quoted under as follows:-
7.5. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source.
Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee.
12. In view of the above, the petitioner, having not been found entitled to any relief, this writ petition stands dismissed.
13. However, before parting with the records it may be mentioned that it has came to the notice of the Court that in the meanwhile, the Department of Personnel, Govt. of Assam has issued Executive order No.ABP.107/2024/Pt/102, dated 30.08.2025. On said basis this Court had passed judgment and order dated 03.04.2025, passed in WP(C) 342/2025. Therefore, this order shall not come in the way of the respondent authorities to examine as to whether the Page No.# 6/6 petitioner shall be entitiled to any benefit arising out of the said Executive Order dated 30.08.2025 read with judgment and order datd 03.04.2025 passed in WP(C) 342/2025.
14. Accordingly, the petitioner shall produce a certified copy of the order to the concerned authorities to examine his case in light of above.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant