Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 21 April, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010068832021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2676/2021
BHARATI DEVI AND ANR
W/O LATE RADHA KRISHNA KUMAR, R/O HOJAI STATION ROAD, NEAR
GURUDWARA NATUN BAZAR, HOJAI TOWN, P.O. AND P.S. HOJAI, DIST.
HOJAI, ASSAM.
2: SHUSMITA KUMARI
D/O LATE RADHA KRISHNA KUMAR
R/O HOJAI STATION ROAD
NEAR GURUDWARA NATUN BAZAR
HOJAI TOWN
P.O. AND P.S. HOJAI
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM 78243
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY SECY./ COMMISSIONER PUBLIC HEALTH AND
ENGINEERING, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006, ASSAM.
2:CHIEF ENGINEER
PHE
HOJAI DIVISION
P.O. HOJAI
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM.
3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHE)
HOJAI DIVISION
P.O. HOJAI
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM.
4:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Page No.# 2/4
HOJAI
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM.
5:STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECY.
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R L YADAV
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
21.04.2021
Heard Mr. A. Kabra appearing on behalf of Mr. R.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the
petitioners, who submits that the husband of the petitioner no.1 and the father of the
petitioner no.2 i.e. Late Radha Krishna Kumar, who was working as a Khalasi in the Office of
the Executive Engineer, PHE Department, Hojai Division died-in-harness on 22.09.2009. The
petitioner no.1, who is the wife filed an application for compassionate appointment on
20.10.2009. Thereafter the petitioner no.1 submitted another representation dated
30.07.2011 praying for compassionate appointment in favour of her elder daughter i.e. one
Smti. Anita Kumari, who was the elder sister of the petitioner no.2.
2. The District Level Committee (DLC) in it's meeting minutes dated 05.12.2012 rejected
the petitioner no.1's prayer for compassionate appointment on the ground of there being no
vacancy. Thereafter no further action was taken by the petitioner no.1 with regard to her
prayer for compassionate appointment.
3. The petitioner no.2, who is the younger daughter of Late Radha Krishna Kumar
attained the age of majority on 28.12.2018. The petitioner no.2 thereafter filed applications
dated 21.12.2020 and 07.01.2020 praying for compassionate appointment. The respondents
Page No.# 3/4
thereafter issued letter dated 25.02.2021 to the petitioner no.2 informing her that her
application for compassionate appointment should have been submitted within 3 (three)
years from the death of the Government employee as per the Government Notification dated
01.06.2015. As such, the respondents informed the petitioner no.2 that her prayer for
compassionate appointment could not be accepted, as it was time barred.
4. Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the
writ petition should be dismissed as the same is hopelessly time barred.
5. I have heard the counsels for the parties.
6. The facts of the case go to show that Shri Radha Krishna Kumar had expired on
22.09.2009. This Court, in the case of Faziron Nessa & Others vs. State of Assam & Others,
reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340, had directed that all applications for compassionate
appointment should be submitted within a time limit of 1 (one) year from the date of death of
the Government servant. Thus as per the judgment of this Court in Faziron Nessa (supra), the
submission of an application for compassionate appointment by the respondent no.2, i.e. 11
years after the death of her father is hopelessly time barred. The petitioner no.2 has also not
made a challenge to the Government Notification dated 01.06.2015, which provides that an
application for compassionate appointment should be submitted within 3 years from the date
of death of the Government servant. Further, in the case of Sanjay Kumar vs. The State of
Bihar and Others, reported in (2000)7 SCC 192, the Apex Court has held that there cannot be
a reservation of a vacancy, till such time the claimant becomes a major after a number of
years, as the very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets
immediate relief.
7. It is also seen that there is no challenge to the rejection of the application of the
petitioner no.1 by the DLC meeting minutes dated 05.12.2012, wherein the application of the
petitioner no.1 had been rejected, on grounds of there being no vacancy. The petitioner no.1
has not been able to show this Court that there was a vacancy available to which the
petitioner no.1 could have been considered at the time the DLC held it's meeting on
05.12.2012.
The above being said, when one member of a family has applied for compassionate
Page No.# 4/4
appointment and the same had been rejected, the same does not give a right to the other
members of the same family to apply for compassionate appointment.
8. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ
petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
