Gauhati High Court
Tapan Saikia vs The Chief Secretary Cum Chairman on 12 December, 2023
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010238672023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6916/2023
TAPAN SAIKIA
S/O LATE SOVAN SAIKIA, R/O KACHU GAON, P.O.-PULIBOR, DIST-JORHAT,
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE CHIEF SECRETARY CUM CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT AND 5 ORS
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
3:THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
JURIPAR
GUWAHATI-37
ASSAM
4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN OF DLC FOR
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
GOLAGHAT
P.O.-GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN-785621
5:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSINER
GOLAGHAT
(DEALING WITH THE P AND R.D. DEPARTMENT)
GOLAGHAT
DIST-GOLAGHAT
Page No.# 2/5
ASSAM
6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
GOLAGHAT EAST DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
PODUMONI
P.O.-GOLAGHAT
DIST-GOLAGHAT
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A R BHUYAN
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
Date : 12-12-2023
Heard Mr. J. Barman, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar,
learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 and
Ms. N. Bora, learned standing counsel, P&RD Department, Assam appearing for the
respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 6.
This writ petition is directed against the resolution adopted in the meeting of the
State Level Committee (SLC) held on 02-08-2022 whereby, the application submitted by
the petitioner, seeking appointment on compassionate ground, was rejected.
The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the mother of the petitioner, who was
working as Gram Sevika, died-in-harness on 15-09-2000, leaving behind her son i.e. the
petitioner. At the time of death of his mother the petitioner was a minor. However, upon
attaining the age of majority, the petitioner had submitted an application in the year 2007,
seeking appointment on compassionate ground. It is the pleaded stand of the petitioner
Page No.# 3/5
that his application was initially misplaced, as a result of which, he had to submit a fresh
application, which was considered by the District Level Committee (DLC) of Golaghat in its
meeting held on 31-12-2021 and recommended the case of the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate ground. By the impugned resolution, the State Level
Committee (SLC) had, however, rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that his
application was placed 21 years after the demise of his mother i.e. the Govt. employee.
Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court had passed order
dated 01-12-2023 requiring the learned departmental counsel to obtain instruction from
the Chairman of the DLC as to the basis on which, the DLC of Golaghat had
recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground even
after the expiry of 21 years since the death of his mother (Govt. employee).
Today when the matter is called up, Ms. Bora, learned standing counsel, P&RD
Department, Assam submits that due to shifting of office, relevant records are misplaced,
as a result of which complete instruction is not available. However, it is the contention of
Ms. Bora that the DLC does not have any authority to reject the application submitted by
the applicant on the ground of delay.
Be that as it may, responding to the petitioner's case, Mr. Dhar, learned Addl. Sr.
Govt. Advocate, Assam has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the
case of State of Manipur Vs. Md. Rajaodin reported in 2003 (7) SCC 511, to submit
that there is no circular in the State of Assam permitting a minor to submit application for
appointment on compassionate ground upon attaining majority, several years after the
death of the Govt. employee. Mr. Dhar further submits that since the purpose of
Page No.# 4/5
appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the immediate financial hardship of
the deceased's family, an application of such nature cannot be considered favourably after
the lapse of 21 years since the demise of the Govt. employee.
Mr. Barman, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has, however, submitted that
since his client was a minor at the relevant point of time, there was no delay in submitting
the application.
In the case of Md. Rajaodin (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with
the above issue. The observations made in paragraph 11 of the judgment would be
relevant for the purpose of this case and therefore, is being reproduced here-in-below for
ready reference:-
"11. In Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. [1989 (4)
SCC 468] it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate
grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing
appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of
the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided
immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor
at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage
specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he
can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above view was re-
iterated in Phoolwati (Smt.) Vs. Union of India & Ors. [1991 Supp. (2) SCC 689]
and Union of India and Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Singh [1995 (6) SCC 476]. In Director of
Education (Secondary) and Anr. Vs. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors. [1998 (5) SCC
192] it was observed that in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be
insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian consideration and
having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the
family would not be able to make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving
appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for
appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of
compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception to the general
provisions does not unduly interfere with the right of those other persons who are
Page No.# 5/5
eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have
been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on
compassionate grounds of the dependent of the deceased employee. As it is in the
nature of exception to the general provisions it cannot substitute the provision to
which it is an exception and thererby nullify the main provision by taking away
completely the right conferred by the main provision."
There is no doubt or dispute about the fact that there is no Govt. circular in the
State of Assam permitting a minor to submit belated application seeking appointment on
compassionate ground upon attaining majority. Rather, the standing Govt. circulars, at the
relevant point of time had laid down that such application should be filed in a time bound
manner and consider as expeditiously as possible. It is to be noted that even if the age of
the petitioner on the date of filing the original application in the year 2007 is taken into
account, even then it is apparent that he had survived more than 16 years without any
Govt. employment. Therefore, there is no justification for this Court to presume that
element of compassion is still present in the case of the applicant/ writ petitioner.
For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court,
as noted above, this Court is of opinion that there is no good ground to entertain this writ
petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
Parties to bear their own cost.
JUDGE
GS
Comparing Assistant
