Gauhati High Court
Jahirul Islam vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 14 November, 2025
Author: M. Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010202392025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/335/2025
JAHIRUL ISLAM
SON OF LATE NAIMUL ISLAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SILPUKHURI, P.O-
SILPUKHURI, PS- MIKIRBHETA, DIST-MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782123.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (P AND RD)
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
3:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) FOR COMPASSIONATE
APPOINTMENT
BEING REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
NAMELY
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTE (DLC) FOR COMPASSIONATE
APPOINTMENT
MORIGAON
REP. BY THE DEPUTY/DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
MORIGAON
CUM CHAIRMAN DLC MORIGAON
Advocate for the Petitioner : KHURSHID ALAM SODIAL, MR. S K TALUKDAR,MR. J M A
CHOUDHURY,MS. S T BOKTH,K A SODIAL
Page No.# 2/4
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
14.11.2025
(M. Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the appellant, who
submits that the impugned judgment & order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge in WP(C) 941/2025, rejecting the appellant's prayer for
compassionate appointment should be set aside, inasmuch as, another Single
Bench in a batch of writ petitions, the lead case being WP(C) 342/2025, which
was disposed of, vide order dated 03.04.2025, had directed that all cases of
compassionate appointment pending in the Court as on 03.04.2025, should be
considered without taking recourse to the Office Memorandum dated
18.09.2024. The Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 had done away with
compassionate appointment and had instead replaced "compassionate
appointment" by way of "Compassionate Family Pension", w.e.f. 18.09.2024.
Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 was made applicable in respect of deaths
that had occurred or persons had retired prematurely on being permanently
incapacitated from service on or after 01.04.2017 .
2. Ms. R. B. Bora, learned counsel appears for the respondent nos.1, 3 & 4.
3. The facts of the case is that the appellant's father died-in-harness on
Page No.# 3/4
13.03.2002 and the application for compassionate appointment made by the
appellant had been recommended by the District Level Committee (DLC) on
07.10.2017. The State Level Committee (SLC) had deferred the decision for
consideration of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, due to non-
submission of NOC and NOK in it's meeting minutes dated 02.03.2023.
Subsequent to the said decision of the SLC on 02.03.2002, no further action had
been taken by the SLC.
4. The appellant's further case is that one Jahangir Alam's application for
compassionate appointment was also deferred by the SLC on 02.03.2023, on
the same grounds as the petitioner. However, Jahangir Alam was subsequently
appointed on compassionate appointment. The appellant's case is that due to
the above, the appellant should also have been considered for compassionate
appointment.
5. The learned Single Judge on considering the fact that the petitioner's
father died on 13.03.2002 and as the objective of compassionate appointment
was to give immediate succour to the family who had lost it's breadwinner, such
objective would not survive after a gap of 23 years. By applying the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of The State of West Bengal vs.
Debabrata Tiwari & Others, reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 219,
wherein it was held that compassionate appointment was not a vested right and
the aspect of delay would be of paramount consideration, the learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the
writ petition, also considered paragraph-7.5 of Debabrata Tiwari (supra),
wherein it had been laid down that in case of prolonged delay, either on the part
Page No.# 4/4
of the applicant or the authorities, the sense of immediacy was diluted and lost
and as such, compassionate appointment after 23 years would not be in sync
with the objective of the scheme for compassionate appointment.
6. The fact that the appellant's father died in the year 2002 is not in dispute
and as on date, more than 23 years have elapsed. As such, we do not find any
reason to come to a different finding than that made by the learned Single
Judge.
7. With regard to the stand of the appellant that, had the appellant's writ
petition i.e. WP(C) 941/2025 not been disposed of on 21.02.2025, i.e, prior to
the disposal of the batch of writ petitions, the lead case being WP(C) 342/2025
on 03.04.2025, the petitioner would have had the benefit of the common order
dated 03.04.2025. Though the submission made by the appellant's counsel with
regard to the above is not disputed by us, it is unfortunate that the case of the
appellant herein cannot stand in the same footing as those petitioners whose
cases were disposed of on a subsequent date i.e. 03.04.2025, as his case was
not pending on 03.04.2025. As such, we are of the view that the common order
dated 03.04.2025 passed in the batch of writ petitions, the lead case being
WP(C) 342/2025, does not cover the appellant's case.
8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
