Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/14 vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 30 July, 2025

Page No.# 1/14

GAHC010028082023

2025:GAU-AS:9794

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

Case No. : WP(C)/1139/2023

HIRAK DEKA
S/O- LATE BHAGAWAN CH. DEKA, R/O- RUDRESWAR, NORTH GUWAHATI,
P.O. RANGMAHAL, PIN- 781030, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DGE, SHRAM SHAKTI
BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-1.

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT DGE
SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN
RAFI MARG
NEW DELHI-1.

3:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL
GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DGE
SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN
RAFI MARG
NEW DELHI-1.

4:THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (EMPL.)
GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN
RAFI MARG
NEW DELHI-1
Page No.# 2/14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U J SAIKIA,

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. D J DAS (r-1 to 4)

BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

ORDER

30.07.2025

Heard Mr. U.J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.J. Das, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking direction for appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the father of the petitioner died-in-harness on 24.12.2003. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner submits an application before the authority for giving her appointment under compassionate ground on 17.06.2004. However, the application of the mother of the petitioner was not considered by the authority for a considerable period. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has completed his graduation and as such, the mother of the petitioner made application to consider the name of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in place of her. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 forwarded his name for appointment on compassionate ground to the respondent No. 3, however, since the petitioner has not been appointed till date, the present Writ Petition Page No.# 3/14

has been filed.

4. Mr. U. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the petitioner has been repeatedly from the very beginning since his father died on 24.12.2003 was filing representations before the respondent authorities for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the same has not been considered. He submits that since the petitioner has been promptly pursuing the claim for compassionate appointment immediately since the death of the father, there has been no delay in approaching this Court.

5. Per contra, Mr. D.J. Das, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 submits that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219, the instant Writ Petition having been filed after a delay of 20 years for issuing of a direction for appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground, is liable to be rejected at the outset on the ground of delay.

6. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the contending parties and have perused the materials available on record.

7. Apt to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), before entering into the merit of the matter. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case while dealing with the issue as whether applications for compassionate appointments could be considered after a delay of several years, has held that after a delay of several years, either on the part of the applicant claiming Page No.# 4/14

compassionate appointment, or on the part of the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Paragraphs 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 & 40 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

"30. The majesty of death is that it is a great leveller for, it makes no distinction between the young and the old or the rich and the poor. Death being as a consequence of birth at some point of time is inevitable for every being. Thus, while death is certain, its timing is uncertain. Further, a deceased employee does not always leave behind valuable assets; he may at times leave behind poverty to be faced by the immediate members of his family. Therefore, what should be done to ensure that death of an individual does not mean economic death for his family? The State's obligation in this regard, confined to its employees who die in harness, has given rise to schemes and rules providing for compassionate appointment of an eligible member of his family as an instance of providing immediate succour to such a family. Support for such a provision has been derived from the provisions of Part IV of the Constitution of India, i.e., Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy.

31. It may be apposite to refer to the following decisions of this Court, on the rationale behind a policy or scheme for compassionate appointment and the considerations that ought to guide determination of claims for compassionate appointment.

i. In Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468, this Court observed that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. That the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardship caused due to the death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.

ii. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, this Court observed that the object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family of a deceased government employee to tide over the sudden crisis by providing gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who is eligible for such employment. That mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood; the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of Page No.# 5/14

the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied that, but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family, provided a scheme or rules provide for the same. This Court further clarified in the said case that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time after the death of a government servant. That the object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the solebreadwinner, compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after lapse of considerable amount of time and after the crisis is overcome. iii. In Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, (1997)

8 SCC 85, ("Hakim Singh") this Court placed much emphasis on the need for immediacy in the manner in which claims for compassionate appointment are made by the dependants and decided by the concerned authority. This Court cautioned that it should not be forgotten that the object of compassionate appointment is to give succour to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis that has befallen the dependants on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member. Therefore, this Court held that it would not be justified in directing appointment for the claimants therein on compassionate grounds, fourteen years after the death of the government employee. That such a direction would amount to treating a claim. for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession.

iv. This Court in State of Haryana v. Ankur Gupta, (2003) 7 SCC 704 AIR 2003 SC 3797 held that in order for a claim for compassionate appointment to be considered reasonable and permissible, it must be shown that a sudden crisis occurred in the family of the deceased as a result of death of an employee who had served the State and died while in service. It was further observed that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right and cannot be made available to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased employee.

v. There is a consistent line of authority of this Court on the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is given only for meeting the immediate unexpected hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner vide Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301. When an appointment is made on compassionate grounds, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it Page No.# 6/14

seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion, vide I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162. In the same vein is the decision of this Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384, wherein it was declared that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. vi. In State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766: AIR 2006 SC 2743, the facts before this Court were that the government employee (father of the applicant therein) died in March, 1987. The application was made by the applicant after four and half years in September, 1991 which was rejected in March, 1996. The writ petition was filed in June, 1999 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in July, 2000. When the Division Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years had passed from the date of death of the father of the applicant. This Court remarked that the said facts were relevant and material as they would demonstrate that the family survived in spite of death of the employee. Therefore, this Court held that granting compassionate appointment after a lapse of a considerable amount of time after the death of the government employee, would not be in furtherance of the object of a scheme for compassionate appointment. vii. In Shashi Kumar, this Court speaking through Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was) observed that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. That the basis of the policy is that it recognizes that a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service. That it is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. The pertinent observations of this Court have been extracted as under:

"41. Insofar as the individual facts pertaining to the Respondent are concerned, it has emerged from the record that the Writ Petition before the High Court was instituted on 11 May 2015. The application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 8 May 2007. On 15 January 2008 the Additional Secretary had required that the amount realized by way of pension be included in the income statement of the Page No.# 7/14

family. The Respondent waited thereafter for a period in excess of seven years to move a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), this Court has emphasized that the basis of a scheme of compassionate appointment lies in the need of providing immediate assistance to the family of the deceased employee. This sense of immediacy is evidently lost by the delay on the part of the dependant in seeking compassionate appointment."

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 Page No.# 8/14

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.

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 Page No.# 9/14

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 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 Page No.# 10/14

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. It was 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."

8. Reading of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, it is apparent that the object of providing grant of compassionate Page No.# 11/14

appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the suddent crisis due to the death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood.

9. It is thus with this very object that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family could not be in a position to make both ends meet, appointment on compassionate ground is provided. However, the same is not a vested right. That apart, appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment.

10. Thus, 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 ceases to exist and looses its signification and thereby disentitling the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds.

11. The Apex Court, as noted in the aforesaid decision, has clearly held 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 claim for compassionate appointment is not maintainable.

12. In the instant case, it appears that the father of the petitioner i.e., late Bhagawan Ch. Deka, while serving in the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employ (DGET), Vocational Rehabilitation Centre for Handicapped, Rehabari, Guwahati as Workshop Attendant, died on 24.12.2003 leaving behind his wife i.e. the mother of the petitioner and two daughters and the petitioner.

Page No.# 12/14

13. It appears that though the mother of the petitioner immediately after the expiry of the father submitted applications before the respondent No. 2 on 17.06.2004, 08.01.2005, 15.11.2007, 27.08.2008, 08.11.2008, 20.12.2008, 17.08.2009 and 31.05.2010, no appointment on compassionate ground was made.

14. It further appears that in the meantime, the petitioner having completed his graduation in the year 2016, the mother of the petitioner requested the respondent authority to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground, however, since the same also did not borne any fruit, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

15. The respondent authority on 04.12.2023, filed affidavit-in- opposition before this Court stating as hereunder:-

"10. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Writ Petition the answering deponent does not admit the fact which is not borne out of records. Further, it is stated that an application dated 02.02.2005 was received from Smt. Son Pahi Deka wife of Late Sh. Bhagawan Ch. Deka, Ex-Workshop Attendant for appointment on Compassionate ground in the Directorate General of Employment, Ministry of Labour& Employment. As per available records, the case of Smt. Son PahiDeka was duly considered by the Committee for Compassionate appointment in the Directorate General of Employment, Ministry of Labour & Employment in its meetings held during the year 2005, 2008 & 2011. The case of Smt. Son PahiDeka w/o Late Sh. Bhagawan Ch. Deka i.e. mother of Petitioner was last considered on 16.03.2011 in the meeting of the Committee for appointment on Compassionate ground. As per Department of Personnel & Training's Scheme and its subsequent amendments issued from time to time, the Compassionate Appointment are to be considered keeping in view the merits of the cases. While considering a request for appointment on Compassionate Appointment a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into accounts its assets and liabilities Page No.# 13/14

(including the benefits received under various welfare schemes) and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of family, ages of the children and essential needs of the family, etc. Further it is mentioned that as per Department Training's Office Memorandum Personnel No.14014/19/2022-Estt(D) dated 05.05.2003, the maximum time a person's name can be kept under consideration for offering Compassionate Appointment was three years at that time, subject to the condition that the prescribed Committee has reviewed and certified the penurious condition of the applicant at the end of the first and the second year. After three years, if Compassionate Appointment is not possible to be offered to the Applicant, his/her case will be finally closed and will not be considered again. Accordingly, the case of Smt. Son Pahi Deka wife of Late Sh. Bhagawan Ch. Deka, Ex-Workshop Attendant was considered in several meetings from the year 2005 to 2011 on receipt of request for appointment on Compassionate ground in the Directorate General of Employment, Ministry of Labour & Employment. But, her case ranked low on the merits every time and hence, not recommended by the Committee for Compassionate appointment. Then, the case of Smt. Son PahiDeka was closed because her case was considered back to back for three times as per existing guidelines at that time and the case once closed cannot be re-opened as per Department of Personnel & Training's guidelines/instructions vide FAQ No.14014/02/2012-Estt. (D) 30.05.2013. The three years' time-limit guideline was implemented by the Department of Personnel & Training with the view to give Compassionate appointment to genuine and deserving cases. From the above, the case of Smt. Son PahiDeka was considered fairly and as per existing rules/guidelines of the Scheme for appointment on Compassionate grounds at that time.

                                       Copy    of    the    scheme   for
                                       compassionate     appointment  is
                                       annexed herewith and marked as
                                       ANNEXURE - A."

16. Reading of the aforesaid paragraphs, it appears that the stand of the respondent authorities is that the case of the petitioner's mother was duly considered by the Committee for Compassionate appointment in its meeting held in the year 2005, 2008 and 2011, and was last considered on 16.03.2011. It further appears that the Page No.# 14/14

respondent authorities after considering the case of the petitioner's mother, was pleased not to recommend the name of the petitioner's mother for compassionate appointment.

17. Accordingly, it appears that the case as regards the appointment of the petitioner's mother on compassionate ground was considered back to back for three times and the same having been rejected, the matter stands finally closed.

18. It appears that despite the case of the petitioner's mother for appointment on compassionate grounds having been rejected and closed, the instant petition has been filed almost after 20 years since the death of the father.

19. Apparent thus, that the present Writ Petition has been filed almost after 20 years since the death of the father. That apart, the matter was earlier considered and rejected.