Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1163 Gua

Gauhati High Court

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

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                                        Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010114042025




                                                                  2025:GAU-AS:7273

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

                               Case No. : WP(C)/2975/2025

            SMTI. MINU NATH
            W/O- LATE DWIJEN CH. NATH.
            R/O- VILLAGE - 2 NO.DAULASHAL.
            P.O.- DAULASAL, BARKHETRI , PIN-781312,DISTRICT- NALBARI, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL
            EDUCATION (SECONDARY),DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

            2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
            ASSAM
             KAHILIPARA
             GUWAHATI -781019.

            3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL
             NALBARI
             NALBARI DISTRICT CIRCLE
             PIN-781335
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S HAZARIKA, MS. M. HAZARIKA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EDU,

BEFORE

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Page No.# 2/8

Advocate for the petitioner : Shri S. Hazarika

Advocate for the respondent : Ms. NM Sarma, SC-Education Deptt.

       Date of hearing      :      04.06.2025
       Date of Judgment     :      04.06.2025


                                 Judgment & Order

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging, inter alia the non-consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that her husband, Dwijen Ch. Nath, who was working as a Grade-IV employee of Daulasal High School in the district of Nalbari and had died in harness on 21.12.2001. The petitioner claims to be eligible had applied for appointment on compassionate ground and such application was forwarded by the Inspector of School, Nalbari on 07.02.2002. Thereafter, the matter was forwarded to the Education Department on 07.05.2002 in spite of which, no appointment has been made on compassionate ground. It is this action, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

3. I have heard Shri S. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. NM Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the non- consideration of the candidature of the petitioner is unreasonable and arbitrary. It is contended that the application for compassionate Page No.# 3/8

appointment was made by the petitioner within the prescribed time and the same was also duly forwarded by the concerned authorities. The learned counsel has also referred to a letter dated 09.07.2002 issued by the Department to the Inspector of School, Nalbari to furnish a detail report on compassionate appointment within the 5% reservation. The petitioner also claims to have submitted an application on 14.03.2012 to the Hon'ble Minister of the Department whereafter, on 26.12.2012, the Department had requested the Inspector of Schools to take action as per the guidelines. A similar request was made on 16.03.2023 by the Principal Private Secretary of the Hon'ble Chief Minister to the Education Department.

5. Per contra, Ms. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department has submitted that the pleadings are vague which shows complete lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioner as no details of any proceeding of the District Level Committee (DLC) or State Level Committee (SLC) have been referred to. She has also highlighted the aspect of delay in approaching the Court and also the aspect of the claim for any such direction in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent 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. On perusal of the writ petition, this Court finds sufficient force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition lacks in disclosure of the relevant facts, namely, as to when the matter of the petitioner was taken up for consideration by the DLC and Page No.# 4/8

thereafter, by the SLC, if at all the same was taken up. Certain vague statements have been made regarding forwarding of the application by the Principal Private Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minster, Assam. This Court has also noticed that in paragraph 7 a claim for compassionate appointment for the elder son of the petitioner has also been raised.

8. There is another aspect of the matter which is very important in the adjudication of the present claim. As per the projected case, the death of the husband of the petitioner was on 21.12.2001 and the writ petition has been instituted in the year 2025 i.e. after almost 25 years. The said aspect is intrinsically connected with the very objective of the scheme for compassionate 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 about 25 years.

9. The law on compassionate appointment has been elaborately explained by the 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-

Page No.# 5/8

"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 such a case pending for years.

(v) In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all Page No.# 6/8

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 aforesaid case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), 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 about 25 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 Page No.# 8/8

petitioner.

14. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant