Plabon Das vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 8 December, 2025

                                                                   Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010192952023




                                                            undefined

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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/5145/2023

         PLABON DAS
         S/O- LATE SRI HARIPADA DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAYABARI, PO-
         TILLABAZAR, PS- KARIMGANJ, DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN- 788709



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
         OF ASSAM, DEPATT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENGINEERING, DISPUR,
         GUWAHATI-06

         2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
          PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENGINEERING
         WATER
         ASSAM
          HENGRABARI
          GUWAHATI-08

         3:THE CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC)
          REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-06

         4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE (DLC)
          REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF KARIMGANJ
         DISTRICT
          DIST.- KARIMGANJ
         ASSAM

         5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENGINEERING
          KARIMGANJ
                                                                                  Page No.# 2/7

             PO AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ
             ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR H R CHOUDHURY, S. TALUKDAR

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E, GA, ASSAM




                                          BEFORE
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
                                         ORDER

08/12/2025

Heard Mr. H R Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Public Health Engineering Department appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5 and Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

2. The petitioner in the present proceedings has prayed for a direction upon the State Level Committee (SLC) to select him for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the recommendations made in his case by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC) in its meeting held on 28.02.2019.

The petitioner's father, Haripada Das, while serving as a Mechanic in the Public Health Engineering Department, had died-in-harness on 26.11.2016. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application on 06.01.2017 before the Departmental authorities for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The application as submitted by the petitioner came to be placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee and was considered by the said committee in its meeting held on 28.02.2019. The said committee, on such consideration, proceeded to recommend the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds against a post identified for the purpose.

The recommendations as made by the jurisdictional District Level Committee came to be forwarded for placing before the State Level Committee.

Page No.# 3/7

The State Level Committee, having not considered the case of the petitioner and no intimation in this connection being issued to him, the petitioner approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 6905/2022. This Court vide order dated 02.11.2022 proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioner before the State Level Committee in its next meeting.

The consideration as required to be made by the State Level Committee not having been made in terms of the directions passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 6905/2022, the petitioner, being aggrieved, again approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 2075/2023.

During the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent authorities had placed before this Court the minutes of the meeting of the State Level Committee dated 14.05.2020, wherein, the case of the petitioner, herein, on consideration, came to be rejected.

In view of the said development, this Court vide order dated 09.08.2023, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition, being WP(C) No. 2075/2023. Accordingly, the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceedings, assailing the decision of the State Level Committee arrived at in its meeting held on 14.05.2020, in so far as rejection of the case of the petitioner, herein, is concerned.

3. Mr. H R Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner, being recommended by the District Level Committee in its meeting held on 28.02.2019 for appointment on compassionate grounds and such recommendation being so made against an identified sanctioned vacant post, the State Level Committee could not have proceeded to reject the case of the petitioner on the ground that there was no vacant post available.

Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner, herein, was diligently pursuing his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds and prior to the institution of the present proceeding, he had instituted two other proceedings before this Court on the same ground. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits Page No.# 4/7

that the recommendations made by the State Level Committee having been so made without properly appreciating the recommendations made in favour of the petitioner by the District Level Committee, the rejection of the case of the petitioner, herein, by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 14.05.2020 would mandate an interference by this Court.

Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondent authorities had during the pendency of the present proceedings issued an Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 in supersession of the policy relating to compassionate appointment, notified by the Government of Assam vide Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. He submits that the persons similarly situated like the petitioner, herein, had assailed the said Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 before this Court by way of instituting writ petitions, one of which is WP(C) No. 342/2025. He further submits that a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased vide judgment dated 03.04.2025 rendered in the case of Abdul Kadir Bokshi & Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Others and other analogous writ petitions, reported in 2025 (3) GLT 896 upon appreciating the concession granted in the matter by the State respondents, permitted the cases of the petitioners, therein, to be considered by the State Level Committee/District Level Committee, as the case may be, on its own merits inspite of the issuance of the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024. He submits that the petitioner's case, being similarly placed would also be required to be remanded back to the State Level Committee for a fresh consideration by taking into account the recommendations made in favour of the petitioner by the jurisdictional District Level Committee.

4. Per contra, Mr. D Gogoi as well as Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned counsels, representing the respondent Departments have submitted that a perusal of the Minutes of the State Level Committee meeting held on 14.05.2020 would reveal that the case of the petitioner, herein, was rejected, on it being found to not fall within the 5% quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds in relation to the Grade-IV post of Khalasi, existing in the establishment, wherein, the father of the petitioner had served before his death in harness.

5. This Court has been apprised by the learned counsels for the respondents that in the Page No.# 5/7

establishment of the respondent No. 5, there exist 7 posts of Grade-IV of Khalasi and 5% thereof not forming 1 post, the case of the petitioner cannot be held to be covered by the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds and accordingly, no vacancy being available for consideration of the case of the petitioner, the rejection of his case by the State Level Committee would not mandate an interference from this Court.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

7. The facts, noticed herein above, are not in dispute.

8. The case of the petitioner on being considered by the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 28.02.2019, a recommendation in his favour came to be made. The said recommendation having not been considered by the State Level Committee, proceedings came to be instituted before this Court, as noticed hereinabove. However, the case of the petitioner was considered by the SLC in its meeting held on 14.05.2020 and therein, on consideration of the claim of the petitioner, his case came to be rejected on the ground that it does not fall within the 5% cadre strength as mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds.

9. This Court in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties has examined the reasons assigned by the State Level Committee for rejection of the case of the petitioner, herein. This Court finds that the cadre strength of the cadre of Grade-IV is 7 posts. 5% of the 7 posts would work out to 0.35. The same being below 1, it has to be held that there was no post vacant within the 5% quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds, for consideration of the case of the petitioner for such appointment.

10. Accordingly, this Court does not find any error with the reason as assigned by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 14.05.2020 for the purpose of rejecting the case of the petitioner, herein, for appointment on compassionate grounds.

11. Having drawn the above conclusion, this Court would examine the contentions raised by the petitioner that his case would also be required to be considered afresh by the State Page No.# 6/7

Level Committee in terms of the directions passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Kadir Bokshi (supra).

12. This Court has perused the directions passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the above noted case and finds that the same would be mandated to be applied in case of the petitioner, only, if this Court is of the considered view that the decision rendered in the case of the petitioner, herein, by the State Level Committee would mandate an interference.

13. This Court having already concluded that the decision of the State Level Committee arrived at in respect of the petitioner in its meeting held on 14.05.2020 requires no interference, further direction for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner by the State Level Committee would not be called for.

14. At this stage, it is also to be noted that the father of the petitioner had died-in- harness on 26.11.2016, around 9 (nine) years have passed on, since the date of death of the father of the petitioner. It is a settled position of law that an appointment on compassionate grounds is to be extended to the family of a deceased Government employee proximate to the time of his death so as to mitigate the financial constraints faced by the family on the sudden death of the bread earner of the family. Accordingly, immediacy of appointment on compassionate grounds proximate to the time of death of the Government servant is the Bench Mark that is to be followed in the matter. In the present case, it is seen that the petitioner and his family members have sustained for the last around 9 (nine) years without any one of them being extended with an appointment on compassionate grounds. [Refer decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors., reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219].

15. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a submission that in pursuance to the direction passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Kadir Bokshi (supra), the respondents have issued a notice dated 30.08.2025, inviting applications from persons for consideration of their cases for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to apply in pursuance to the said Notification.

Page No.# 7/7

16. The said position having come to the notice of this Court, this Court observes that in the event the petitioner has submitted his application in pursuance to the notice dated 30.08.2025, the conclusions drawn by this Court, hereinabove, shall not be bar the consideration of the case of the petitioner in terms of the said notice dated 30.08.2025. However, such consideration shall be made strictly appreciating the decision of the State Level Committee already arrived at in the matter in respect of the petitioner and also by reckoning the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra).

17. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant