Gauhati High Court
The Union Of India And 5 Ors vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 22 January, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010275952024
2025:GAU-AS:651-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/95/2025
BASANTI CHOUDHURY
W/O- LT. PAWAN CHOUDHURY, R/O- AMSING JORABAT SHANTI BASTI, P.O.
and P.S.- SATGAON, DIST.- KAMRUP M, ASSAM, PIN- 781027.
-VERSUS-
1.THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
ARMY HEAD QUARTER, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110011.
2:THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF
INTEGRATED HEADQUARTER
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ARMY
NEW DELHI- 110011.
3:CHIEF ENGINEER
HEADQUARTER EASTERN COMMAND
FORTE WILLIAM KOLKATA- 21.
4:CHIEF ENGINEER
HEAD QUARTER SHILLONG ZONE
SPREAD EAGLE FALLS SHILLONG- 11.
5:COMMANDER WORKS ENGINEER
HEAD QUARTER SHILLONG ZONE
SPREAD EAGLE FALLS SHILLONG- 11.
6:GARRISON ENGINEER
MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICE
NARANGI C/O- 99 APO PIN- 900328
Page No.# 2/4
Linked Case : WA No.15665/2024 (Filing Number)
BASANTI CHOUDHURY
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
For the Applicant(s) : Mr. N. Sarma, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Borthakur, Advocate.
- BEFORE -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
22.01.2025
(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)
The matter comes upon for consideration of the instant Interlocutory
Application, i.e. I.A.(Civil) No.95/2025, preferred on behalf of the applicant under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 with a prayer to condone the delay of 224 days
occasioned in preferring the connected writ appeal assailing the judgment and order
dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3764/2014.
2. WP(C) No.3674/2014 was preferred by the applicant before the learned Single
Judge raising a grievance that her case for appointment on compassionate ground,
after the death of her husband, who died in harness, has wrongly been rejected by
the respondent Department. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the
learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 08.04.2024.
3. Against the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge,
the applicant has preferred the connected writ appeal, which is yet to be registered.
4. It is to be noticed that the husband of the applicant, who was a Government
employee, while working as a regular Mazdoor in the establishment of Garison
Engineer, Military Engineering Service, Narengi, died in harness on 12.01.2004. The
Page No.# 3/4
applicant submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground in the
month of August, 2004 but the respondents have not considered her request.
5. The case of the applicant is that she had approached the respondents on
regular intervals but unfortunately, in year 2014, she was served with a notice of the
year 2007, precisely dated 08.08.2007, whereby her claim for granting compensation
appointment was rejected.
6. Against the said communication dated 08.08.2007, the applicant preferred the
captioned writ petition.
7. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival arguments and taking into
consideration the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana
State Electricity Board Vs. Hakim Singh, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 85,
State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., reported in (2023) SCC
OnLine SC 219, has observed that applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) and Hakim Singh
(supra), it is clear that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same
is related to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the
deceased government servant as a consequence of his/her death. It is further
observed that a claim for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be
entertained after a lapse of considerable time since the death of the government
servant, more so, when the family has been able to sustain itself during the long
period after the death of the government servant.
8. The learned Single Judge has further observed that there is nothing on record to
show that the applicant was diligently pursuing the matter with the authorities after
2004 and instituted the proceedings raising grievance with regard to the failure on the
part of the authorities to consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground
till the filing of the captioned writ petition. The learned Single Judge has further
observed that the applicant and/or his family having not pursued the mater timely
Page No.# 4/4
after the death of the Government employee, it is not a fit case to direct the
respondent authorities to again consider the case of the applicant for appointment on
compassionate ground.
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and having gone
through the material available in the connected writ appeal, we are of the view that
the learned Single Judge has rightly not issued any direction to the respondent
authorities to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate
ground because there is all possibilities that the financial hardships which the
applicant and his family have faced due to untimely death of the Government servant
may have diluted at present.
10. If the applicant and her family who have been able to survive for more than two
decades from the date of death of the Government servant, we are also of the view
that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion of this court under its extra-ordinary
jurisdiction.
11. In view of above discussion, the instant Interlocutory Application filed on behalf
of the applicant for condoning the delay of 224 days occasioned in preferring the
connected writ appeal as well as the connected writ appeal, which is yet to be
registered, stand dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
