Page No.# 1/8 vs The Union Of India And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 3366 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/8 vs The Union Of India And Anr on 21 February, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                                            Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010018642016




                                                                      2025:GAU-AS:1887

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

                                   Case No. : WP(C)/3654/2016

            FAIZ UDDIN MAZUMDER
            S/O LT. AKON ALI MAZUMDER, VILL- TUPKHANA PT.-I, P.O. ARUNACHL
            P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            THE UNION OF INDIA and ANR
            TO BE REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
            DEFENSE, NEW DELHI-01.

            2:COMMANDING OFFICER

             57
             MONT. DIVISION ORD. UNIT
             PIN - 909057

Advocate for the Petitioner       : MS.L WAJEEDA, MR.K MIRA,MR.N ISLAM,MR.N H
MAZARBHUYAN

Advocate for the Respondent : C.G.C., ,MR.S S ROY,ASSTT.S.G.I.

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

Advocate for the petitioner: Ms. L. Wazeeda Advocate for the respondent: Shri SS Roy, CGC

Date of hearing : 21.02.2025 Page No.# 2/8

Date of Judgment : 21.02.2025

Judgment & Order

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging, inter alia the non-consideration and appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground.

2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that his father, Akon Ali Mazumder, who was working as a Majdoor under the Commanding Officer, 57 Mountain Division of the Indian Army had died in harness on 10.07.2003. He left behind his wife and three minor children including the petitioner. The petitioner was stated to be a minor at the time of the death of his father. The petitioner had passed his H.S. examination and after attaining the age of majority, had submitted an application on 11.04.2009 praying for appointment on compassionate ground. On such application, certain documents were asked from the petitioner and thereafter, there was no action. The petitioner also claims to have submitted a representation dated 19.11.2015 followed by filing of the present writ petition.

3. I have heard Ms. L. Wazeeda, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri SS Roy, learned CGC.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no negligence on his part in applying for appointment on compassionate ground. It is submitted that after the petitioner had attained majority and passed the H.S. examination, he could apply for the same. The process ought to have been taken to a logical conclusion which was not done and therefore, she submits that appropriate directions be issued for such consideration and appointment.

Page No.# 3/8

5. Per contra, Shri Roy, learned CGC has submitted that the objective of the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground is to give immediate relief to a bereaved family which has lost its sole bread winner, who was a Government servant. It is submitted in the instant case that the death was in the year 2003 and in the meantime, almost 22 years have passed and therefore, there is no requirement in law for such consideration.

6. The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.

7. The facts on record make it clear that the death of the father of the petitioner was on 10.07.2003 and the application was claimed to be made by the petitioner on 11.04.2009 after the petitioner had attained majority.

8. The law is well settled on the field of appointment on compassionate ground. It has been laid down that in a case where an applicant was a minor at the time of death of the Government servant, there is no requirement in law to wait for such consideration till such applicant attains majority. Further, in the instant case, as on today, about 22 years have passed since the date of death. It also appears from the note which been placed on record that there was indeed some action to consider the case of the petitioner at the relevant point of time. However due to want to documents the same did not materialise. Be that as it may, issuing a direction to consider now would not be in consonance with the scheme.

9. The very objective of appointment of compassionate ground, which is an exception to the general mode of recruitment is to give immediate succor to a family which has lost its sole breadwinner who was a Government servant and such objective would not survive after a gap of 22 Page No.# 4/8

years.

10. The Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Bihar reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192 has laid down as follows:-

"3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned

Senior Counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education v. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2-6-1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief."

11. The law on compassionate appointment has been elaborately explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case of State of West Bengal Vs Debabrata Tiwari reported in AIR 2023 SC 1467. In the said case, almost all the earlier cases on the subject of compassionate appointment have been discussed and the principles have been laid down. It has been reiterated that an appointment on compassionate ground is a departure from the normal rule and is an exception which is meant only to Page No.# 5/8

enable the bereaved family to tie over the sudden financial crisis on the death of a government servant while in service. It has also been clarified that it is not a vested right and the aspect of delay would be of paramount consideration. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow-

"7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the

following principles emerge:

(i) That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e. to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.

(ii) Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.

(iii) Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

Page No.# 6/8

(iv) That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.

(v) In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members. together with the income from any other source."

12. On the aspect of delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), while examining the said aspect from the context of the scheme has also laid down that even if the delay is on account of the authorities, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. The relevant part as observed in paragraph 7.5 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below:-

"7.5. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first

instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing Page No.# 7/8

gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, an noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as thought it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee."

13. An appointment on compassionate ground is a departure from the normal mode of recruitment wherein a certain quota is reserved and the objective is to enable a bereaved family losing their sole breadwinner who was a government servant to overcome the immediate financial crisis. It has been laid down that such appointment cannot be held to be a matter of any vested right and it is not a source of recruitment.

14. In the instant case, the issue raised regarding the delay is required to be considered vis-à-vis the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 7.5 of the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra). It has been clearly laid down that in case of prolonged delay either on the part of the applicant or the authorities, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. In view of such law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court has no other option but to hold that any further direction for consideration of the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground after a period of about 22 years from the death of a Government servant would not be in sync with Page No.# 8/8

the objective of the scheme for compassionate appointment.

15. Accordingly, this Court is not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioner.

16. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant