Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2248 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 23 January, 2025

                                                                     Page No.# 1/11

GAHC010053942020




                                                                2025:GAU-AS:838

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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/3581/2023


         SUMON RANJAN DAS
         SON OF LATE SUJIT RANJAN DAS
         RESIDENT OF LONGAI ROAD
         JAHANPUR
         P.O.- SETTLEMENT
         P.S. AND DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ
         ASSAM PIN- 788710.

          VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
         HOME DEPARTMENT
         ASSAM SECRETARIAT
         DISPUR
         GUWAHATI-06.

         2:THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
         DISPUR GHY-06 ASSAM.

          3:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07 ASSAM.

          4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KARIMGANJ DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ
          ASSAM PIN- 788710.

         5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ DISTRICT
         KARIMGANJ ASSAM
         PIN- 788710.
         ------------

Advocate for : MR. J KALITA Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS Page No.# 2/11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

Date of hearing : 23.01.2025 Date of Judgment : 23.01.2025

Judgment & order(Oral)

Heard Mr. Jitumani Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Dilip Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate; appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to the decision arrived at by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 02.03.2023, towards rejecting his case for appointment on compassionate ground.

3. As projected in the writ petition, the father of the petitioner Late Sujit Ranjan Das, while working as a Havildar in the Assam Police, had died-in- harness on 21.04.2011. In pursuance of the death of his father, the mother of the petitioner approached the respondent authorities by way of submission of an application on 11.05.2011, praying for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground. It is contended that the said application of the mother of the petitioner was not considered. Thereafter, the petitioner, herein, submitted an application on 13.06.2012, praying for consideration of his case appointment on compassionate ground against any Grade-IV vacant post. The application as submitted by the petitioner after a considerable period of delay, came to be placed before the Page No.# 3/11

jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 17.09.2022. The jurisdictional District Level Committee, on consideration of the application of the petitioner, proceeded to recommend his case against a post of Constable(UB) and the matter was directed to be placed before the State Level Committee for further consideration. The recommendation as made in favour of the petitioner by the jurisdictional District Level Committee, came to be placed before the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 02.03.2023. The State Level Committee, however, on consideration of the case of the petitioner, proceeded to reject the same on account of late submission of the application, in question. The rejection of the case of the petitioner by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 02.03.2023, was communicated to the petitioner, herein, by the Superintendent of Police, Karimganj, vide communication, dated 05.04.2023.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding before this Court.

5. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that although had submitted his application on 13.06.2012; the same was so done strictly in terms of the advice rendered by the departmental authorities to the family of the petitioner, herein. The learned counsel has further submitted that the jurisdictional District Level Committee on scrutiny of the application as submitted by the petitioner having found the petitioner to be in need of an appointment for sustenance of his family; proceeded to recommend his case for appointment on compassionate ground against an identified vacant post of Constable(UB) in the Assam Page No.# 4/11

Police.

6. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel, has also submitted that the State Level Committee in view of the facts existing in the matter and also, the recommendations so made in favour of the petitioner, herein, by the jurisdictional District Level Committee, ought not to have rejected the case of the petitioner only on the ground that the application so submitted by him, was submitted beyond the time-frame prescribed for the purpose.

7. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel, has strenuously argued that the State Level Committee while making the recommendations for appointment on compassionate ground, have not applied the same yardstick to the applicants before it. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that while the petitioner's case was rejected by the State Level Committee on the ground of late submission of his application; the same very State Level Committee after a long delay, considered and made recommendations for appointment on compassionate ground in respect of the persons whose names have been disclosed in paragraph No. 13 of this writ petition.

8. Accordingly, Mr. Kalita, learned counsel, has submitted that the State Level Committee in making recommendations of the applicants before it, had done so that the manner in which the State Level Committee has been making recommendations in matters pertaining to the appointment on compassionate ground has clearly violated the rights of the petitioner, herein, as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

9. In the above premises; Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, Page No.# 5/11

has submitted that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered by the State Level Committee on the basis of the recommendations so made in his favour by the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 17.09.2022.

10. Per contra, Mr. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, has further submitted that the father of the petitioner had died-in-harness on 21.04.2011. The learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, has also submitted that since the date of the death of the father of the petitioner, around 14 years have elapsed and accordingly, the immediacy for effecting appointment on compassionate ground insofar as the petitioner is concerned, has lost its force.

11. The learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari & ors.[reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219] and has further contended that in terms thereof; the delay so occasioning, has rendered the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, to be a stale one and no further direction for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground, would be called for in the matter.

12. Mr. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, in the above premises, has submitted that the present writ petition is bereft of any merit and the same is required to be dismissed.

13. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also Page No.# 6/11

perused the materials available on record.

14. It is a settled position of law that public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of an application and on merits. The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a source of recruitment. It is merely an exception to the requirement of law keeping in view the fact of the death of the employee while in service, leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over the sudden financial crises. Such appointments on compassionate ground, therefore, have to be made in accordance with the Rules, Regulations, or, administrative instructions taking into consideration, the financial condition of the family of the deceased. The favourable treatment to the dependent of the deceased employee must have a clear nexus with the objects sought to be achieved thereby i.e. relief against destitution. At the same time, however, it should not be forgotten that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions and millions of other families which are equally, if not more, destitute. The exception to the Rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the service rendered by him and the legitimate expectation, and the change in the status and affairs of the family endangered by the erstwhile employment, which are suddenly upturned. The claims for of appointment on compassionate ground would mandate that there be no delay in effecting such appointment, the object being to mitigate the hardships faced by the family due to the death of the bread earner.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in the case of Page No.# 7/11

Debabrata Tiwari(supra), on the issue involved in the present proceeding, has drawn the following conclusions:

"32. 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.

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.

33. The object underlying a provision 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. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a bread-winner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred 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 and 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.

Page No.# 8/11

34. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependants of the deceased employee being employed on compassionate grounds. The financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the time of the death of the deceased, is the primary consideration that ought to guide the authorities' decision in the matter.

35. 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 gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh 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. 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.

36. Laches or undue delay, the blame-worthy conduct of a person in approaching a Court of Equity in England for obtaining discretionary relief which disentitled him for grant of such relief was explained succinctly by Sir Barnes Peacock, in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong, (1874) 3 P.C. 221 as under:

"Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation, in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute or limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of Justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy."

37. Whether the above doctrine of laches which disentitled grant of relief to a party by Equity Court of England, could disentitle the grant of relief to a person by the High Court in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of our Constitution, came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M. R. Meher, President, Industrial Court, Bombay, AIR 1967 SC 1450. In the said case, it Page No.# 9/11

was regarded as a principle that disentitled a party for grant of relief from a High Court in the exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

38. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 this Court restated the principle articulated in earlier pronouncements in the following words:

"9.... the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this Rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, In its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. Itwas pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction."

39. While we are mindful of the fact that there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, ordinarily, a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time, vide Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538; NDMC v. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278.

40. Further, simply because the Respondents-Writ Petitioners submitted their applications to the relevant authority in the year 2005-2006, it cannot be said that they diligently perused the matter and had not slept over their rights. In this regard, it may be apposite to refer to the decision of this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, wherein the following observations were made:

"19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time."

16. Applying the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari(supra) to the facts of the present case, it is seen that the father of the petitioner had expired on 21.04.2011. The consideration that is now sought to be made in respect of the petitioner herein, for appointment on compassionate ground is a consideration so required to be made after a lapse of around 14 years. The sense of immediacy in the Page No.# 10/11

matter of compassionate appointment in respect of the petitioner has been lost. Such delay is attributable to both the authorities of the State as well as the petitioner; however, entertaining the claim at this point of time would be of no avail, because, admittedly, the petitioner has been able to eke out a living even though he was not favoured with an appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case to direct the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground be considered or entertained by the respondent authorities.

17. The contention of the petitioner that he was discriminated against in- as-much as the jurisdictional District Level Committee had proceeded to recommend the cases of persons for appointment on compassionate ground after long delay had occasioned from the date of death of the Government employees involved; is being so considered only to be rejected in-as-much as the petitioner, herein, has not challenged the appointment of the persons so stated to have been recommended for appointment on compassionate ground after long lapse of time since the death of the Government employees involved in their respective cases.

18. At this stage, it is to be noticed that upon the death of the father of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner had submitted an application praying for appointment on compassionate ground. The said application as submitted by the mother of the petitioner was not proceeded with by her. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted an application on 13.06.2012. The application as submitted by the petitioner, cannot be considered to be one so submitted in continuation to such application submitted by his mother.

Page No.# 11/11

The application, dated 13.06.2012, as submitted by the petitioner, must be construed to be a fresh application and the same must independently satisfy the conditions mandated for consideration of the case of legal heirs of a deceased Government employee for appointment on compassionate ground. The application, dated 13.06.2012, having been submitted beyond the period so prescribed for submission of the same; the said application would not mandate a consideration by the authorities.

19. In view of the foregoing discussions and conclusions reached herein above by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the issue involved in the present proceeding being a stale issue, it would not be permissible for this Court to issue any direction requiring consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in pursuance to the death his father, in harness, occasioning in the year 2011.

20. In view of the above conclusions, this writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant