Md. Tayab Ali Choudhury vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 8654 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Md. Tayab Ali Choudhury vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 18 November, 2025

Author: Soumitra Saikia

Bench: Soumitra Saikia

                                                                        Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010277742023




                                                                 undefined

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

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/7189/2023

            MD. TAYAB ALI CHOUDHURY
            S/O JC-664432N LATE NUR UDDIN CHOUDHURY, BHAIRAB NAGAR,
            KRISHNAPUR, CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788025



            VERSUS

            THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY
            OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001

            2:THE COMMANDANT
             571 ASC BN
             C/O 99 APO
            ARMY CANTONMENT
             MISSAMARI
            TEZPUR
             DIST-SONITPUR
            ASSAM

            3:THE COMMANDING OFFICER
            ASC
             RECORDS (SOUTH)
             BANGALORE
             PIN-900493 C/O 56 APO

            4:THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENSE
            ACCOUNTS (PENSION)
             PRAYAGRAJ
             UTTAR PRADES

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. B PURKAYASTHA, MR. B PURKAYASTHA,MR B D
DAS,MR. S SUTRADHAR
                                                                            Page No.# 2/4


Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS. A GAYAN,MRS. A GAYAN,MRS. R DEVI (r-1)




                                  BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

                                       ORDER

18.11.2025

Heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. A. Gayan, learned CGC for the respondents.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is being aggrieved that his case for compassionate appointment by the respondent authorities has been rejected. The petitioner's late father was initially serving in the Indian Army as a Driver and subsequently promoted to the post of Subedar. Due to ill health the father of the petitioner was boarded out of service. Pursuant thereto the petitioner being the son applied for compassionate appointment which came to be rejected by the order dated 03.04.2021 on the ground that the petitioner's late father, although medically boarded out, was considered fit for civil employment and the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment has been rejected in terms of the OM No.14014/6/94-Estt (D) dated 09.10.1998 which is also reproduced and such condition is also available in the subsequent letter dated 02.08.2022. Being aggrieved the present writ petition has been filed.

The respondents have initially raised the objections with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the same is not maintainable, as it relates to service matters of Armed Forces and therefore, the appropriate forum is the Armed Forces Tribunal.

Page No.# 3/4

Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged before the Court that this objection does not have any merits inasmuch as the petitioner is not yet employed under the Armed Forces and therefore, the rejection of his case for consideration for compassionate appointment cannot be treated to be a matter pertaining to the appointment of the Armed Forces or the Army and thereby, non suiting the petitioner in the present proceedings before the Writ Court and requiring him to be relegated to the Armed Forces Tribunal. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgments rendered by the Allahabad High Court and also the judgments of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, wherein it was held that it is only in respect of the matters pertaining to an employment, where the litigant is already in service of the Armed Forces then the Armed Forces Tribunal will have jurisdiction to decide the matter and where the person is not employed under the Armed Forces, then the Armed Forces Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to entertain such petition. Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the scheme is applicable only to those persons who are medically boarded out of the Army. He further urged that the petitioner's late father was boarded out of the Army on the medical grounds and the ailment suffered by the petitioner's father would not have permitted the petitioner's late father to opt for civil employment.

Under such circumstances, it submitted that the rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner is arbitrary, therefore, the same should be interfered with and set aside.

Mrs. A. Gayan, learned CGC on the other hand prays for leave of the Court to produce the relevant medical certificates.

Page No.# 4/4

The prayer made is allowed.

As agreed to let this matter be listed again on 27.11.2025.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant