Page No.# 1/9 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2157 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/9 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 22 January, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                                  Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010248712018




                                                           2025:GAU-AS:653

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

                        Case No. : WP(C)/7697/2018

         MALAMONI KALITA
         W/O- LT BAKUL CHANDRA KALITA, R/O- VILL- MAHRUL JURIA, P.O.
         MAZPATHARI, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782003



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
         REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF
         FINANCE (ESTTB. B), DISPUR, GHY-6

         2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE
          FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND UNDER FINANCE
         (ESTTB. B) DEPTT.
          GOVT. OF ASSAM
          REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
          DISPUR

          GHY-6

         3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRPERSON DISTRICT LEVEL
         COMMITTEE
          NAGAON
         ASSAM
          PIN- 782001

         4:THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS AND TREASURIES
         ASSAM
          DISPUR

          GHY-6

         5:THE TREASURY OFFICER
                                                                        Page No.# 2/9

            NAGAON TREASURY
            NAGAON- 78200

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAMUAH, MR. C P SHARMA,MRS. K BARPUZARI,MR.
P K BHUYAN,MR. S D ROY

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE DEPTT., GA, ASSAM

BEFORE

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

Advocate for the petitioner : Shri A. Chamuah

Advocate for the respondent : Ms. M. Barman, GA-Assam Ms. R.M. Baruah, SC-Finance

Date of hearing : 22.01.2025 Date of Judgment : 22.01.2025

Judgment & Order

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging, inter alia the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground which has been done by the State Level Committee (hereinafter SLC) in its meeting dated 07.06.2017 and again on 04.05.2018.

2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that her husband, Bakul Chandra Kalita, who was working as Senior Accounts Assistant, Sub-Treasury Office, Kaliabor had died in harness on 08.09.2013. The petitioner who claims to be eligible had applied for appointment on compassionate ground and the District Level Committee (DLC), Nagaon had Page No.# 3/9

recommended the name of the petitioner to the SLC on 03.03.2015. The SLC however, rejected the case of the petitioner on 07.06.2017 on the ground of overage. On representation of the petitioner, her case was placed before the SLC a second time on 04.05.2018 when once again, her case was rejected.

3. I have heard Shri A. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. M. Barman, learned Government Advocate, Assam and Ms. R.M. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no negligence on her part in applying for appointment on compassionate ground. The DLC in its meeting dated 03.03.2015 had duly recommended the case of the petitioner and even if, the age factor had come in as a barrier, the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 07.06.2017 vested powers to the SLC to exercise discretion and condone the overage. In this connection, the learned counsel has referred to Clause 16 of the OM dated 07.06.2015, as per which such powers to condone delay was vested. It is submitted that the SLC, by failing to exercise its power had acted illegally and thereby caused prejudice to the petitioner.

5. Per contra, Ms. Barman, learned State Counsel has submitted that the reasons cited for rejecting the case of the petitioner are relevant and germane and therefore, the submission that there is illegality cannot be countenanced. She further submits 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 on 08.09.2013 and in the meantime, almost 12 years have passed and Page No.# 4/9

therefore, there is no requirement in law for such consideration.

6. Ms. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department has endorsed the submission of the learned State Counsel.

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

8. The materials on record make it clear that the death of the husband of the petitioner was on 08.09.2013 and the application appears to be made on 26.09.2013. However, it transpires that on that date of making the application, the age of the petitioner was 40 years 4 months and 26 days which admittedly, is beyond the upper age limit for entry into the Government service. Be that as it may, the DLC, Nagaon on 03.03.2015 had recommended the case of the petitioner. However, the SLC, on detecting the said aspect of overage had rejected her case. It however appears on 04.05.2018 the matter was reconsidered by the SLC on an application made which culminated in another rejection on the same ground of overage.

9. The crux of the argument made on behalf of the petitioner is that Clause 16 of the OM dated 01.06.2015 grants power to the SLC to condone age and that power was not exercised.

10. To examine the said contention, this Court has looked into the consideration of the case of the petitioner by the SLC both on 07.06.2017 and 04.05.2018. On the first occasion, the rejection was on the ground of overage, whereafter the petitioner had prayed for reconsideration in view of Clause 16 of the OM dated 01.06.2015. A perusal of the minutes dated 04.05.2018 of the SLC would however show that the aforesaid aspect was also taken into consideration wherein the SLC came to a finding that while Page No.# 5/9

the OM is of the year 2015, the death in the instant case is related to the year 2013 when such OM was not existing and therefore, such powers could not have been exercised.

11. Apart from the aspect that the reasoning given by the SLC to reject the candidature of the petitioner cannot be said to be irrelevant, this Court is of the view that Clause 16 only grants discretion to the SLC in appropriate cases. For ready reference, Clause 16 is extracted hereinbelow-

"(16) The upper age limit could be relaxed wherever found to be

necessary as per the existing Government policy. The lower age limit shall, however, in no case be relaxed below 18 years. Age eligibility shall be determined with reference to the date of application and not the date of appointment. The State Level Committee shall be competent to grant relaxation of upper age limit for making such appointment as per existing Government policy."

12. It clearly appears that a case has to be there wherein exercise of such condonation is necessary and cannot be done as a matter of right. It is not the projected case of the petitioner that she was the sole candidate and the post had to be kept vacant because of lack of candidates.

13. There is another aspect of the matter with regard to the very objective of the scheme for compassion appointment. The very objective of the scheme, 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 12 years.

14. The law on compassionate appointment has been elaborately Page No.# 6/9

explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219. 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 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 Page No.# 7/9

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.

(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."

15. 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 Page No.# 8/9

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 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."

16. An appointment on compassionate ground is a departure from the normal mode of recruitment wherein a certain quota (5%) 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.

17. In the instant case, the issue regarding 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 Page No.# 9/9

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 12 years from the death of a Government servant would not be in sync with the objective of the scheme for compassionate appointment.

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

19. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant