Bharati Chetri vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors. E
2022 Latest Caselaw 4560 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010193362022




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                   Case No. : WA/322/2022

            BHARATI CHETRI
            D/O LATE LAKSHMAN KARKI CHETRI, VILLAGE AND PO DIGARU, PS
            SONAPUR, DIST KAMRUPM ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. E
            REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PWD
            DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006, ASSAM

            2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

             PWD DEPARTMENT
             CHANDMARI
             GUWAHATI 781003
             ASSAM

            3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

             PWD GUWAHATI ROAD DIVISION
             GUWAHATI 781001
             ASSAM

            4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
             KAMRUPM GUWAHATI 781001
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR P R SARMA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
                                                                                Page No.# 2/5


                                  BEFORE
                       HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

                                          ORDER

Date : 18.11.2022 (R.M. Chhaya, C.J.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 17.12.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 5471/2020, the appellant/original petitioner has preferred this intra-court appeal.

2. It is the case of the appellant/original petitioner that the father of the appellant was working as a Sub-Engineer in the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads) Division, Guwahati, and he died in harness on 15.08.2008. The case of the appellant/original petitioner is that her mother made representation before the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads) Division, Guwahati, for compassionate appointment for her daughter, i.e., the present appellant/original petitioner vide application dated 17.08.2008. Based upon the said application, the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads) Division, Guwahati, forwarded the proposal to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), on 04.06.2009 to consider the appellant's case for compassionate appointment. However, the authorities did not act upon the same. The appellant/original petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and inter alia prayed as under:

"In the premises aforesaid it is therefore prayed that your Lordship may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the record, issue a rule calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why the respondent should not be directed to give the petitioner an employment opportunity on compassionate ground, call for the records and upon hearing the parties pleased to pass any such further order(s) as your Lordship may deem fit and proper

-AND-

Pending disposal of the rule your Lordship would graciously be pleased to direct the respondent to give the employment opportunity to the petitioner Page No.# 3/5

on compassionate ground and/or be pleased to pass any such further or/other order as your Lordship may deem fit and proper."

It is also the case of the appellant/original petitioner that she filed another representation dated 12.11.2020 before filing the writ petition.

3. The learned Single Judge of this Court rejected the writ petition on the ground that more than 12 years had elapsed and no case for compassionate appointment was made out. The learned Single Judge also observed that there is no inherent right to seek compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

4. Heard Mr. P. R. Sarma, leaned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing counsel, PWD, appearing for the respondents.

5. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner has taken this Court through the impugned order as well as the materials on record and has contended that even though the application was filed by the mother of the appellant, the same remained without any consideration and the same amounts to denial of the right of the appellant/original petitioner to avail compassionate appointment. It is also contended by Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant that the respondents were bound by the rules and they should have considered the application filed by the mother of the appellant.

6. Par contra, learned counsels for the respondents have supported the impugned order and have submitted that the appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed.

No other or further submissions have been made by the learned counsels for the respective parties.

Page No.# 4/5

7. It is a matter of fact that the father of the appellant expired on 15.05.2008. It is also an admitted position that the application for compassionate appointment was submitted way back in the year 2008. However, the appellant did not pursue the same and approached this Court after 12 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Trvancore Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anusree K.B. , reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 819 has, upon considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. Vs. V. Somyashree, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 704 and N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka , reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617, observed thus:

"7. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal, the law laid down by this Court on compassionate ground on the death of the deceased employee are required to be referred to and considered. In the recent decision, this Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. Vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704, had occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground. After referring to the decision of this Court in N.C. Santhosh Vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617, this Court has summarised the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground as under:-

(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;

(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;

(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

(iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State's policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;

(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.

8. As per the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.

*** *** ***

9. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment Page No.# 5/5

in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

9.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided."

8. In the case on hand also it cannot be said that after a lapse of 12 years the situation of die-in-harness has continued and the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in not entertaining the petition filed by the appellant after 12 years. We find no error in the impugned order, much less any error apparent on the face of the records which requires interference by this Court in exercise of the powers under appellate jurisdiction. The appeal being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

                                   JUDGE                      CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant