Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 17 February, 2025
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010205592024
2025:GAU-AS:1607
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5477/2024
MD. SAMSUDDIN AHMED
S/O LATE MAKIBUR RAHMAN, R/O BESIMARI, P.O.-OUTALA, PIN-784525,
P.S.-MANGALDAI, DIST-DARRANG (ASSAM)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
DEPTT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, DIST-KAMRUP,
ASSAM
2:JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM
3:DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
KAHILIPARA
DIST-KAMRUP
ASSAM
4:STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVT OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM
5:DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
DARRANG
Page No.# 2/5
P.O.-MANGALDAI
DIST-DARRANG
6:DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
DARRANG
P.O.-MANGALDAI
DIST-DARRANG
7:DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL
MANGALDAI
P.O.-MANGALDAI
DIST-DARRAN
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD B ISLAM,
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 17-02-2025
Heard Mr. B Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that
the petitioner's father died-in-harness on 23.06.21995 while working as an
LP School Teacher. The petitioner, who had attained the age of majority filed
an application on 11.09.1995 for compassionate appointment. He submits
that the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was
recommended by the District Level Committee (DLC) in the year 2023.
However, as the petitioner's application had not been considered by the
State Level Committee (SLC), a direction should be issued to the SLC to
consider the petitioner's application.
2. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner's late father had two
wives and ten children.
3. Mr. G Pegu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and Ms. S
Page No.# 3/5
Chutia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 6 submit that if the
petitioner had attained the age of majority in 1995, it showed that he had been
able to survive for the past 30 years. As such, in line with the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of The State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata
Tiwari & Ors., reported in 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 191, the writ petition
should be dismissed, as the petitioner does not need compassionate
appointment.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
5. On a careful perusal of the writ petition, I find that the affidavit of the
petitioner shows that his age was 44 years as on 26.09.2024. As such, the
petitioner would have been 14/15 years at the time of his father's death. Thus,
the petitioner was a minor at the time of death of his father.
6. It is also seen that none of the two wives of the petitioner's father or any of
his children had made any application for compassionate appointment, even
though the wives of the petitioner's father had attained the age of majority. This
implies that the family of the deceased were not very hardup at the time of
death of the bread earner. The above being said, there is nothing in the writ
petition to show that the DLC had recommended the name of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment. The letter which the petitioner's counsel has
referred to in the writ petition, which is at Annexure-7, states that the
petitioner's application for compassionate appointment should be placed before
the next DLC meeting for its consideration. The said letter (Annexure-7) is a
letter dated 02.09.2023 issued by the Additional District Commissioner(P),
Darrang, Mangaldoi which request the respondent No. 6 to place the petitioner's
application before the next DLC meeting for consideration. As such, it is clear
that the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment has not been
Page No.# 4/5
considered by the DLC till date.
7. As held by various decisions of the Supreme Court, the object of
compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the family
members of the deceased Government servant, so as to mitigate the immediate
loss suffered by the family of the bread winner. In the present case, 30 (thirty)
years have elapsed since the death of the petitioner's father.
8. In the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), the Supreme Court has held
that as the object for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the
family of the deceased employee, to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death
of the bread-earner, which has left the family in penury and without any means
of livelihood. There is a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in
matters concerning compassionate or else, the object of the scheme of
compassionate would be frustrated. It is also held that when there is occurrence
of a long lapse of time since the date of death of the deceased employee, the
sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to
exist and thus lose its significance. This would be a relevant circumstance which
must weigh with the authorities, in determining as to whether a case for the
grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration. The
Supreme Court further held that granting compassionate appointment after a
prolonged period of delay 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. It thus held that a claim for
compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a
considerable period of time since the death of the Government employee. It
further held that though there is no period of limitation for filing a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution, ordinarily a writ petition should be filed
Page No.# 5/5
within a reasonable period. In the present case, the petitioner has filed this
application for compassionate appointment only on 26.09.2024, i.e., after nearly
30 years of the death of the petitioner's father.
9. This Court is accordingly of the view that due to a long lapse of time from
the time of death of his father, it can be said that the petitioner has been able to
survive the immediate loss caused to the family due to the death of his father in
1995. This Court is accordingly of the view that the sense of immediacy has
been diluted and lost, as more than 30 years have passed since the death of the
petitioner's father. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground to exercise
its discretion in the present case. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
