Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2328 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 27 January, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                                      Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010012392017




                                                             2025:GAU-AS:861

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

                         Case No. : WP(C)/785/2017

         RUPAM CHANDRA NATH
         S/O LT. BHEBLU NATH, R/O DOHALI KARKA, P.O. BATARHAT, P.S.
         PALASHBARI, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781122



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM and 5 ORS.
         REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PWD,
         DISPUR, GHY-6

         2:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          PWD
          RURAL ROADS SUB-DIVISION
          DHUBRI
         ASSAM

         3:ASSISTAND EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          BILASIPARA SUB DIVISION
          PWR ROAD
          BILASHIPARA
          DIST- DHUBRI
         ASSAM

         4:DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE
          DHUBRI
          REP. BY DY. COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN
          DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
          DHUBRI

         5:NAZIR HUSSAIN
          S/O ABDUL SALAM SK.
          C/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
                                                                               Page No.# 2/8

             PWD R/R DIVISION
             DHUBRI
             ASSAM

            6:SONAM KUMARI ROY
             D/O CHANDESWAR MAHATO
             C/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
             PWD R/R DIVISION
             DHUBRI
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.B K GOSWAMI, MR.N BARMAN,MR.S K GOSWAMI

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A BHATTACHARYYA, GA, ASSAM,MR. M HOQUE,MR Z

HUSSAIN

BEFORE

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

Advocate for the petitioner : Shri SK Goswami

Advocate for the respondents : Shri JK Goswami, Addl. Sr. GA-Assam

Date of hearing : 27.01.2025 Date of judgment : 27.01.2025

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, Bheblu Nath, who was working as Grade-IV in the PWD, Dhubri had died in harness on 08.10.2012. The petitioner who claims to be eligible had applied for appointment on compassionate ground which, however was rejected by Page No.# 3/8

the District Level Committee (DLC) on 15.07.2013 on the ground of economic criteria. The petitioner had thereafter represented and claims that his case was taken up for reconsideration. However, the result was the same. It is this rejection, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

3. I have heard Shri SK Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri JK Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned decision is unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the petitioner had fulfilled the economic criteria and there were posts lying vacant wherein the petitioner could have been accommodated. It is submitted that the rejection was made in a mechanical manner and without doing a serious analysis of the economic criteria of the petitioner.

5. Per contra, Shri Goswami, 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 economic criteria is a relevant consideration in matters of compassionate appointment inasmuch as, the very purpose is to assist the bereaved family to overcome the immediate financial crisis and also the fact that there are numbers of contenders for limited number of posts. 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 in 2012 and in the meantime, more than 12 years have passed and therefore, there is no Page No.# 4/8

requirement in law for such consideration. He has also submitted that affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent no. 4 on 07.11.2023. He has relied upon the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219.

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

7. The materials on record make it clear that the death of the father of the petitioner was on 08.10.2012. The consideration for rejection of the application of the petitioner is economic criteria. Such reasons cannot be said to be irrelevant or extraneous and no substantial materials have been able to be demonstrated by the petitioner to overcome the same.

8. 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 12 years.

9. 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 Page No.# 5/8

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.

(iv) That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep Page No.# 6/8

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."

10. 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 Page No.# 7/8

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."

11. 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.

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

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

Page No.# 8/8

14. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant