WP(C)/4226/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 7054 Gua

Gauhati High Court

WP(C)/4226/2025 on 5 September, 2025

Author: Manish Choudhury

Bench: Manish Choudhury

                                                                                  Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010164882025




                                                                           2025:GAU-AS:12226

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


                           Writ Petition [C] no. 4226/2025

                        Bedanta Medhi, aged about 24 years, son of Late Indreswar Medhi,
                        Resident of Village - Chauldhowa, Bali Gaon, Garpara Gaon, District
                        - Dhemaji, Assam, Pin -787034.
                                                                   .......................Petitioner


                                                      -Vs-


                   1.   The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner and Secretary,
                        Home and Political Department, Government of Assam, Dispur,
                        Guwahati, Pin - 781006.

                   2.   The Director General of Police Assam, having its Office situated at B.K.
                        Kakoty Road, Ulubari, District - Kamrup (M), Guwahati, Pin -781008.

                   3.   The Commandant 2nd A.P. Battalion Lumding, having its office situated

                        at Office of the Commandant 2nd A.P.T.F. Battalion (now 18TH APBN)
                        Lumding, District - Hojai, Assam, Pin- 782442.

                   4.    The Deputy Commissioner, having its Office situated at DC Office,
                        Hojai, Sankardev Nagar Hojai, Assam, Pin - 787057



                                                                         ..............Respondents
                                                                                     Page No.# 2/10

Advocates :
Petitioner                                            :     Mr. Z. Islam, Advocate

Respondents                                          :      Mr. R. Dhar, Advocate

Date of Hearing and Judgment & Order                  :      05.09.2025



                                            BEFORE
                       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                        JUDGMENT

1. By invoking the extra-ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has instituted the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of a decision dated 07.07.2023 passed by the District Level Committee [DLC] in respect of an application the petitioner had submitted seeking his appointment on compassionate ground.

2. The facts leading to the decision of the DLC dated 07.07.2023 can be delineated, at first, for better appreciation.

3. The father of the petitioner, Indeswar Medhi was serving as a Deputy Lance Naik in Assam Police Task Force [APTF] Battalion at Lumding, Assam when he died-in-harness on 07.08.2006. At the time of his death, he left behind his wife and three sons. The petitioner has stated that he was the eldest of the three sons and at the time of the death of his father, he was about six years old.

3.1. Due to his minority at the time of death of his father, the petitioner could not submit any application within a period of one year from 07.08.2006 seeking his appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner has stated that his mother being illiterate, did not submit any application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. It was in 2017, the petitioner passed the High School Leaving Certificate [HSLC] examination. Subsequently in Page No.# 3/10

the year 2019, the petitioner passed the Higher Secondary [HS] examination and thereafter, obtained his Graduation degree, that is, B.A. Honours, [Economics] in the year 2022. The petitioner has further stated that after attaining majority in the year 2018 it was not possible to submit an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground as at that point of time, he was studying in the second year of the Higher Secondary course and he had to complete his Higher Secondary Examination. Subsequently during the period from 2019 to 2021 the petitioner could not submit his application due to COVID-19 pandemic. As soon as the COVID-19 pandemic subsided, the mother of the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent authorities on 10.08.2022 praying for appointment of the petitioner in a post of Constable on compassionate ground. Prior to that, the petitioner also submitted an application on 15.07.2022 along with all the relevant documents seeking his appointment on compassionate ground.

4. The receipt of the petitioner's application was duly acknowledged by the respondent no. 2 and by an Office Letter dated 20.7.2022, the respondent no. 2 forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Officer In-Charge, Gogamukh Police Station, Dhamaji to verify the authenticity of the documents and status of employment in the family of the petitioner. Subsequently, the Officer In-Charge, Gogamukh Police Station forwarded a report to the respondent no. 2 vide his Letter dated 20.07.2022 stating that the documents submitted by the petitioner were correct and authentic and there was no criminal antecedent in so far as the petitioner and the other family members of the petitioner are concerned.

5. The petitioner has further stated that after receipt of the report from the Officer In- Charge, Gogamukh Police Station, the respondent no. 2 forwarded the application of the petitioner to the respondent no. 4 for processing the case for appointment on compassionate ground. The case papers were also forwarded by the respondent no. 2 to the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Assam at Guwahati stating that there was no Government employee in the family of the petitioner and the petitioner was eligible for appointment in a Grade-III post.

6. When the application of the petitioner was not placed before the DLC meeting Page No.# 4/10

constituted for the purpose of considering cases of compassionate appointment the petitioner made an application under the Right to Information [RTI] Act on 22.11.2024 seeking details as regards his application for compassionate appointment. The respondent no. 2 had, thereafter, furnished the information under the RTI act on 04.12.2024. From the information so furnished, the petitioner has come to learn that the case of the petitioner was placed before the meeting of the DLC, held on 07.07.2023, for consideration. But, the DLC did not recommend the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment due to late submission of the application. The DLC recorded that the father of the petitioner died on 07.08.2006 and as per the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, the application for compassionate appointment had to be submitted within a period of one year from the death of the deceased employee. The petitioner's application was found to be submitted beyond the period of one year, that is, on 10.08.2022.

7. I have heard Mr. Z. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for all the respondents.

8. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the period from 07.08.2006 to 10.08.2022, the family of the petitioner had undergone extreme financial difficulties. The petitioner could not submit his application for compassionate appointment within a period of one year from 07.08.2006 as he was around six years of age. After the petitioner had attained majority in the year 2018, the petitioner within a reasonable period submitted his application for compassionate appointment on 10.08.2022. The DLC ought to have considered the application of the petitioner in the proper perspective, more particularly, from the standpoint of the period of financial difficulty undergone by the family of the petitioner during the interregnum. In support of his submissions comma Mr. Islam has referred to three decisions of the Coordinate Benches of this Court rendered in W.P.[C.] no. 2736/2024 [Rakibul Islam vs. the State of Assam and Others], W.P.[C.] no. 3017/2017 [Amarjyoti Borgohain vs. State of Assam and others] and W.P.[C.] no. 1431/2023 [Musafir Rahman Choudhury vs. the State of Assam].

9. In response, Mr. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for Page No.# 5/10

the State respondents has submitted that the petitioner submitted his application for appointment on compassionate grounds after more than a decade from the date of death of his father. The matter of appointment on compassionate ground is not a right. In view of such long lapse of time, the object and purpose of providing immediate relief to the family of the petitioner has been lost. He has submitted that after considering a long line of decisions in the matter of compassionate appointment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others, [2025] 5 SCC 712, has recently settled the principles and as per the principles so laid down, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate ground at such distant point of time.

10. It is settled that, as a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly in adherence to the principles laid down in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment or any other consideration is permissible. The government or the public authorities are not at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the procedure laid down by the rules for the post. This general rule is ordinarily to be followed in every case. However, some exceptions have been carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness. If the employee as the sole bread winner of the family expires, leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration and taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet. It is taking into such humanitarian angle a policy is ordinarily adopted to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The object of granting compassionate appointment is, therefore, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis befallen on it. It is also settled that mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The financial condition of the family of the deceased is required to be examined thoroughly. Only if it is found that the family will not be able to meet the crisis that has befallen on it due to the sudden demise of the only bread-earner in the family, the provision for employment on compassionate ground can be resorted to. The post meant for appointment on compassionate ground are only posts which fall in the categories of Class-III or Class-IV Page No.# 6/10

which can be offered on compassionate grounds.

11. It was as early as in the year 1994, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, reported in [1994] 4 SCC 138, has observed as under :-

6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

12. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others, [2025] 5 SCC 712, after considering a number of precedents on the point of compassionate appointment, has culled out the number of principles which are as under :-

32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge:

32.1. 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.

32.2. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of Page No.# 7/10

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.

32.3. 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.

32.4. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.

32.5. 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.

33. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the breadearner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a breadwinner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to Page No.# 8/10

act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered the question whether applications for compassionate appointments could be considered after a delay of several years. The Hon'ble Court has held the view that if in a case there is 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 or lost. In such circumstances the 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 sources. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though 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 related to the financial condition and hardships faced by the dependants 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.

14. A Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal no. 74/2020 [Nabanita Lahkar vs. the State of Assam and 3 others] and Review Petition no. 83/2020 [Nabanita Lahkar vs. State of Assam and 3 others] has considered a case, similar to the petitioner herein. The father of the writ appellant/review petitioner ['the appellant', for short] was an employee in the Forest Department, Government of Assam who died in harness on 07.12.1995, leaving behind his wife and two minor daughters with the appellant as the Page No.# 9/10

younger daughter. Subsequent to the demise of the deceased employee, the appellant submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2007 stating that at the time of her father's death, she was only seven years of age, and the application for compassionate appointment was filed after attaining majority. The court, after considering the principles governing the matter of compassionate appointment, has reached the view that the very basis for compassionate appointment stood removed by efflux of time.

15. Admittedly, the petitioner herein was a minor at the time of his father's death on 07.08.2006. According to the petitioner himself he was about six years of age at that time. It was after twelve years of his father's death the petitioner attained majority in the year 2018. The petitioner after attaining majority in the year 2018 did not submit the application for the next four years till 2022. It was on 15.07.2022 the petitioner submitted an application along with all the relevant documents seeking his appointment on compassionate ground and on 10.08.2022, his mother submitted an application before the respondent authorities for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. The application of the petitioner was not recommended by the DLC on 07.07.2023. It is evidently clear that during the period of about sixteen years from 2006 to 2022, the family of the petitioner had survived to make ends meet. The petitioner was also able to pursue his academic career to complete his Graduation Degree. From the statements of the petitioner it can be noticed that though in the year of attaining majority in 2018, the petitioner had the Matriculation qualification to apply for appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner decided to wait for four more years to complete his Graduation and then apply.

16. In the case in hand, the application of the petitioner was rejected by the DLC on 07.07.2023 and the petitioner has approached this Court by the writ petition only on 25.06.2025, that is, near about two years after rejection by the SLC. Such inordinate delay has taken the very basis on which the application for compassionate appointment to be considered. The writ petition has clearly suffered from delay and laches. By the time the writ petition is preferred, the claim for compassionate appointment had become stale. The staleness of the claim had taken away the very basis of providing compassionate appointment and has, thus, merited its rejection.

Page No.# 10/10

17. Thus, the immediacy for providing an earning to the family was found absent on the date of submission of the application if the principlal object behind providing any employment on compassionate ground is taken into consideration. By the time the writ petition has been preferred, a period of nineteen years has already elapsed since the death of the petitioner's father on 07.08.2006.

18. In view of the observation made and the findings reached at as above on the basis of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the decision of the Division Bench, the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the parties need no discussion.

19. In the backdrop of such fact situation, this Court does not find any ground, not to speak of any good and sufficient ground, to proceed further with the writ petition. The writ petition having been found devoid of any merit and suffering from delay and laches, is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant