Rubal Hussain Barbhuiya vs The State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 611 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Rubal Hussain Barbhuiya vs The State Of Assam on 16 May, 2025

Author: Soumitra Saikia

Bench: Soumitra Saikia

                                                                 Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010066542025




                                                          undefined

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

                         Case No. : WP(C)/1918/2025

         RUBAL HUSSAIN BARBHUIYA
         SON OF LATE BASIR UDDIN BARBHUIYA, VILLAGE PAIKAN, RATANPUR
         ROAD, HAILAKANDI, ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM
         TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,
         DISPUR, GUWAHATI

         2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
          PERSONNEL (B) DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI

         3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
          PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI

         4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PWD)
         TERRITORIAL ROAD
          HAILKANDI DIVISION
          HAILAKANDI

         5:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE
         TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
         AND CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITEE
          HAILAKANDI
         ASSA
                                                                        Page No.# 2/8


Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR N A MAZARBHUIYA, MR N Z CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, PERSONNEL DEPT.,SC, PWD




                                    BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

                                        ORDER

16.05.2025

Heard Mr. NZ Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.

R. Dhar, learned Government Advocate, Assam.

2. The matter pertains to the appointment of the petitioner under the die-in-

harness scheme. The petitioner's father was working as a Chowkidar, Grade-IV

cadre in the office of the Public Works Department, Territorial Roads, Hailakandi

Division, Hailakandi, who died in harness on 17.04.2014 leaving behind the

petitioner and other dependents. The grievance of the petitioner is that the

petitioner filed his application for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme

before the Authority. The respondent authority thereafter submitted the

proposal along with his application before the District Level Committee (DLC)

meeting held on 11.02.2022 which extended its meeting held on 16.03.2022 but

his proposal kept pending for consideration of the next District Level Committee

(DLC) meeting. However, till date his case has not been considered by the Page No.# 3/8

District Level Committee (DLC).

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings

available on records.

4. It is observed that by order dated 07.04.2025, this Court, after hearing the

learned counsel for the parties, deferred the matter as it was submitted that the

Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 is under challenge before the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court by which the Government of Assam has taken a

decision that there shall be no further appointment to be made under the

compassionate ground for those government employees who expired before

2017. This Office Memorandum has been brought out following the judgment of

the Apex Court rendered in State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Others.

in Civil Appeal No.8842 & 8855 of 2022.

5. It is submitted that the issues involved in this writ petition are akin to the

issues which were decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C)

No.342/2025 and a batch of writ petitions and which were disposed of by the

judgment and order dated 03.04.2025. The said judgment and order dated

03.04.2025 is quoted herein below:

"All the writ petitioners have prayed for setting aside the Office Memorandum

(OM) dated 18.09.2024 issued by the Government of Assam, Personnel (B) Page No.# 4/8

Department, by which the scheme for compassionate appointment has been done

away with for all those family members of the Government servants, who died in

harness prior to 01.04.2017. The OM dated 18.09.2024 has been issued in complete

supersession of the compassionate appointment policy, notified by the Government of

Assam, Personnel (B) Department, vide OM No. ABP.50/2006/Pt-182 dated 01.06.2015

and other related Personnel Department office memorandums, pertaining to the said

compassionate appointment policy.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the prayer of the petitioner that the State Government should consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on merit and not reject the petitioner's application only by referring to the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024.

4. On considering the various writ petitions submitted by the petitioners, it is found that the cases of the petitioners' allude to different facts and circumstances, which would require this Court to go into the merits of each individual writ petition, with regard to the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment.

5. The various writ petitions can be divided into various categories, based on different facts. Some of the writ petitions throw up the following issues, which is not exhaustive, in relation to the compassionate appointment applications, which are as follows:-

1. What happens when an application for compassionate appointment has been recommended by the District Level Committee (DLC) and has not been decided by the State Level Committee (SLC)?

2. What happens when the DLC/SLC has rejected an application for compassionate appointment and this Court has directed for reconsideration of Page No.# 5/8

the application? Whether the OM dated 18.09.2024 shall override the direction passed by this Court?

3. Whether the decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others (Civil Appeal No. 8842-8855/2020) would apply in cases where the DLC and the SLC have not considered the application, though the applications had been submitted within time and prior to 01.04.2017?

4. Whether the law/scheme prevalent on the death of the deceased Government employee is to be considered, while deciding an application for compassionate appointment or whether the law/scheme prevalent at the time of consideration of the application by the DLC/SLC should be the basis for considering the application?

5. Whether a person can challenge the OM dated 18.09.2024, when his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the DLC or SLC?

6. Whether two family members of a deceased Government servant can file different applications for compassionate appointment?

7. Whether the son of the deceased Government servant can file an application for compassionate appointment, when the application of the surviving spouse has been rejected by the DLC/SLC?

8. Whether the minor child can wait to become a major and thereafter file an application for compassionate appointment?

9. Whether the surviving mother/father can file an application for compassionate appointment for and on behalf of the minor child and whether the same is to be considered by the Authorities when the minor attains majority?

6. On the other hand, it is the case of the State respondents that there is no infirmity with the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024 issued by the Government of Assam, Personnel (B) Department, as the same has been made pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari Page No.# 6/8

and others (Civil Appeal No. 8842-8855/2020), which was decided on 03.03.2020.

7. Without going further into the issue as to whether the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024 is bad in law or not, it would be proper to refer to the proposal that had been made by the learned AG, Assam on an earlier date, which is to the effect that all the applications for compassionate appointment, in relation to the cases which are pending in this Court, challenging the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024, shall be considered by the concerned authorities on merit. The same would be done by taking into account the various guidelines for compassionate appointment prior to 01.04.2017 that were applicable in the State of Assam and the various decisions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court.

8. The counsels for all the petitioners have submitted that they are agreeable to the proposal made by the learned AG, Assam and as such, do not wish to press their challenge to the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024 any longer.

9. In view of the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, all the writ petitions that are pending as on today, i.e., 03.04.2025, in the Gauhati High Court, which have put to challenge the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024, are to be decided as follows:-

(i) All the applications for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioners shall be considered and disposed of by the concerned DLC/SLC on merit, by taking into consideration the various guidelines prior to 01.04.2017, laid down by the State Government for compassionate appointment and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court. Consequently, the rejection of all compassionate appointment by the DLC/SLC, which have been put to challenge and are pending in the Gauhati High Court as on 03.04.2025, are set aside.

(ii) The entire process for considering the various applications for compassionate appointment and the decision to be taken in each case by the concerned authorities, should be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the Page No.# 7/8

concerned District Commissioner, who is also the Chairman of the DLC, if the matter pertains to the DLC. In other cases, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, who is the Chairman of the SLC, if the matter pertains the SLC.

10. It is made clear that in view of the consent of the parties, this Court has not gone into the merits of any of the petitioners' cases that are being disposed of by way of this order and as such, the applications for compassionate appointment should be disposed of by the concerned authorities on merit, as they deem it fit and proper. The decision/s to be taken by the concerned authorities should be based on reasons and the decision taken should be communicated to the petitioners thereafter. It is also directed that while deciding the applications for compassionate appointment, the respondents cannot take recourse to the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024, though the judgment provided therein, i.e., the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), can be considered/applied by the concerned authorities. It is again made clear that this order cannot be used as a precedent for cases that are filed on 04.04.2025 and thereafter. It shall only apply to cases that are pending before this Court as on 03.04.2025.

11. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of."

6. Upon perusal of the judgment and order dated 03.04.2025, this Court is of the considered view that the issues in the writ petition too will be covered by the judgment and order dated 03.04.2025 passed in WP(C) no.342/2025 and other connected writ petitions. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that this matter can be disposed of in terms of the order dated 03.04.2025 passed in WP(C) no.342/2025.

7. Accordingly, this Court without going into the merit of the case dispose of the present writ petition by directing the concerned respondent to dispose of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on merit, as they Page No.# 8/8

deem it fit and proper, within a period of 2 (two) months from today. The decision taken by the concerned authority should be based on reasons and the decision taken should be communicated to the petitioner thereafter. It is also directed that while deciding the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment, the respondents cannot take recourse to the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024, though the judgment provided therein, i.e., the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), can be considered/applied by the concerned authorities. It is again made clear that this order cannot be used as a precedent for cases that are filed on 04.04.2025 and thereafter. It shall only apply to cases that are pending before this Court as on 03.04.2025.

8. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant