Manoj Kumar Das vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 3829 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Manoj Kumar Das vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 7 March, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                               Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010018252018




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/757/2018

         MANOJ KUMAR DAS
         S/O LT. HARKUMAR DAS
         VILL- BONGAON, P.O. AND P.S. RANGIA
         DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
         PIN - 781354



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT,
         GOVT. OF ASSAM,
         DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

         2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

          IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT

         ASSAM

         CHANDMARI
         GUWAHATI-5.

         3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

          RANGIA DIVISION (IRRIGATION)
          RANGIA
          DIST. KAMRUP (R)
          ASSAM
          PIN - 781354.

         4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                                                                                  Page No.# 2/8

             KAMRUP (R)
             CHAIRMAN
             DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE

             FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT

            AMINGAON
            DIST. KAMRUP (R)
            ASSAM
            PIN - 781031

            5:MRS. GULNEHAR BEGUM
            W/OLT. RAHAMAT ULLAH
            R/O STATION ROAD

             RANGIA
             WARD NO. 2

             DIST. KAMRUP (R)
             ASSAM
             PIN - 781354

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. M SARANIA, MD. S U AHMED,MS. I KEITZAR

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR A U AHMED,MR. A I HUSSAIN,MR. A R

BHUYAN,SC, IRRIGATION

BEFORE

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

Advocate for the petitioner : Shri A. Sarania

Advocate for the respondent : Shri N. Upadhyay, SC-Irrigation Deptt.

                                        Shri AU Ahmed, R.-5

             Date of hearing      :      07.03.2025
             Date of Judgment     :      07.03.2025


                                      Judgment & Order
                                                                   Page No.# 3/8

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging, inter alia the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground which has been done by the District Level Committee (hereinafter DLC) in its meeting dated 30.01.2014.

2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that his father, Harkumar Das, who was working as Assistant Carpenter in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Rangia Division had died in harness on 11.10.2010. The petitioner who claims to be eligible had applied for appointment on compassionate ground and for a long time was unaware of the outcome of such consideration and accordingly, he had sought information under the RTI Act. Thereafter, he came to know that the District Level Committee (DLC), Kamrup, in its meeting dated 30.01.2014 had recommended the name of the private respondent no. 5 by rejecting the case of the petitioner. It is this action, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

3. I have heard Shri A. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard the Departmental Counsel and Shri AU Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is unreasonable and arbitrary. It is contended that the respondent no. 5 was economically well off than the petitioner and the said aspect of financial condition was totally ignored by the DLC. It has also been averred that the family of the respondent no. 5 already had a Government servant.

Page No.# 4/8

5. Per contra, the Departmental 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.

6. By endorsing the submission made by the Department, Shri Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 08.01.2021. It is submitted that his client was duly considered and after the recommendation of the DLC, her case was considered by the SLC and thereafter, she has been duly appointed. It is submitted that there is no challenge to the said actions. It is also submitted that her husband was an employee on the said Office who had died in harness and she was the only woman candidate who was found most suitable.

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

8. The materials on record make it clear that the death of the husband of the petitioner was on 11.10.2010 and the rejection by the DLC was of the year 2014. The writ petition itself was instituted in the year 2018. While the challenge is structured on the allegation that the financial status of the respondent no. 5 was better than the petitioner, the said allegation has been disputed by the respondent no. 5 in the affidavit-in-opposition filed. The said aspect constitutes a factual dispute which is not liable to be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. There is another aspect of the matter with regard to the very objective of the scheme for compassion appointment. The very objective of Page No.# 5/8

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 15 years.

10. The law on compassionate appointment has been elaborately explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219. 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:

(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.

Page No.# 6/8

(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."

11. 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 Page No.# 7/8

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 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.

Page No.# 8/8

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 15 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