Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2266 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 24 January, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                                    Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010065012020




                                                             2025:GAU-AS:762

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

                        Case No. : WP(C)/2753/2020

         BASAB RANJAN DEB
         S/O. LT. BHRAMAN KANTA DEB, VILL. PARK ROAD, P.S. SILCHAR, DIST.
         CACHAR, ASSAM.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
         THROUGH- THE SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PWD DEPTT.,
         DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

         2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE
          FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
         THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          DISPUR
          GHY.-06.

         3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (ROADS)
         ASSAM
          CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI-03.

         4:THE DIST. LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT

          REP. BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER
          CACHAR
          SILCHAR.

         5:THE SUPDT. ENGINEER P.W.D. (ROADS)
          CACHAR CIRCLE
          SILCHAR
          DIST. CACHAR
         ASSAM
                                                                            Page No.# 2/8


Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. L R MAZUMDER, MR H ROHMAN,MR. Y S MANNAN,MR.
A Z AHMED

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. S S ROY, GA, ASSAM (R-2,4),MR B GOGOI,

SC, PWD (R-1,3,5)

BEFORE

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

Advocate for the petitioner : Shri YS Mannan

Advocate for the respondents : Shri R. Dhar, Addl. Sr. GA-Assam

Date of hearing : 24.01.2025 Date of judgment : 24.01.2025

Judgment & Order

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a claim for appointment on compassionate ground.

2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that his father, Bhraman Kanta Deb, who was working as UD Assistant in the Office of the Superintendent Engineer, PWD (Roads), Cachar had died in harness on 12.08.2010. The petitioner who claims to be eligible had applied for appointment on compassionate ground which, however was rejected on the ground of delay in applying. The petitioner had thereafter approached this Court by filing WP(C)/4148/2013 which was disposed of vide order dated 16.12.2014 by interfering with the rejection order and with a direction to Page No.# 3/8

the District Level Committee (DLC) for consideration as one time measure. The DLC in its meeting dated 07.04.2015 had reconsidered the case of the petitioner and recommended the same. The State Level Committee (SLC) however in its meeting dated 31.12.2018 had rejected the claim of the petitioner mainly on two grounds- (i) not within 5% quota and (ii) under qualified.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had once again approached this Court by filing WP(C)/1654/2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 15.03.2019 directing a consideration of the case of the petitioner in terms of Paragraph 15 of the OM dated 01.06.2015. The matter was accordingly reconsidered by the SLC in its meeting dated 23.12.2019 and the application was rejected on 4 grounds- (i) applicant does not have required educational qualification, (ii) the deceased employee had less than 3 years of service remaining, (iii) he cannot be accommodated in any Division in Assam and (iv) his application was pending for recommendation for more than two years. It is the aforesaid decision which is a subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

4. I have heard Shri YS Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned decision is unsustainable in law and not in consonance with the previous directions and orders of this Court in the earlier proceedings. It is submitted that this Court in the first order dated 16.12.2014 had interfered with the aspect of alleged delay in submitting the application and by the second order dated 15.03.2019 had directed consideration as per Page No.# 4/8

paragraph 15 of the OM dated 01.06.2015. However, the same aspects have again been taken into consideration for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is not at fault for the delay which has been caused in the meantime.

6. Per contra, Shri Dhar, 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. He submits that though the consideration in the impugned decision regarding delay may not be relevant, there are three other considerations including the aspect of accommodating in any other Division as per paragraph 15 of the OM dated 01.06.2015 and based on that, the decision has been taken. He 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 12.08.2010 and in the meantime, more than 14 years have passed and therefore, there is no requirement in law for such consideration. He has also submitted that affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent no. 1 on 29.11.2021. He has also submitted that after 2017, the scheme for compassionate appointment has been stopped and presently, there is a scheme for compassionate family pension in appropriate cases. He has also referred to the present Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024. He has relied upon the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219.

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

Page No.# 5/8

8. The materials on record make it clear that the death of the father of the petitioner was on 12.08.2010. Though, the findings in the impugned order with regard to the aspect that the application was pending recommendation for more than 2 years may not be a relevant consideration, the other factors appear to be relevant and germane to the issue at hand.

9. 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 more than 14 years.

10. The law on compassionate appointment has been elaborately explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra). 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:

Page No.# 6/8

(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.

Page No.# 7/8

together with the income from any other source."

11. On the aspect of delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 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 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 Page No.# 8/8

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."

12. 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.

13. 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 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 14 years from the death of a Government servant would not be in sync with the objective of the scheme for compassionate appointment.

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

15. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant