Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 11 September, 2025
Author: M. Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010088782025
2025:GAU-AS:12386
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./75/2025
JUSHNA DEORI
D/O LATE NIRONSING DEURI, VILL. SANKARPUR, P.O. MADHUPUR, B.O. ,
P.S. NARAYANPUR, DIST. NORTH LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN 784165
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF
ASSAM, GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE (B) DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6
2:THE DIST. COMMISSIONER
LAKHIMPUR
PIN 787001
3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DHAKUAKHANA DIVISION (IRRIGATION)
DHAKUAKHANA DIVISION (IRRIGATION)
DHAKUAKHANA
LAKHIMPUR
PIN 78416
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. G BORAH, MS L BARUAH,MS. M DEKA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, IRRIGATION
Linked Case : WA/273/2024
Page No.# 2/6
JUSHNA DEORI
D/O- LATE NIRONSING DEURI VILL- SANKARPUR
P.O.- MADHUPUR B.O.
P.S.- NARAYANPUR
DIST. NORTH LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 784165.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (B) DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
LAKHIMPUR
PIN- 787001.
3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DHAKUAKHANA DIVISION (IRRIGATION)
DHAKUAKHANA
LAKHIMPUR
PIN- 784164.
------------
Advocate for : MS. G BORAH
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
ORDER
Date : 11-09-2025
(M. Zothankhuma, J)
Heard Ms. G. Borah, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard
Page No.# 3/6
Mr. P. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The review petitioner prays for review of the order dated 16.08.2024,
passed in W.A. No.273/2024, by which the petitioner's prayer to be given
compassionate appointment has been rejected, in terms of the decision of the
learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.395/2024.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the appellant's father had died in
harness on 04.08.2016, leaving behind the petitioner and her mother. The
petitioner submitted an application dated 04.01.2017 for compassionate
appointment. The petitioner's mother died on 30.11.2022. The petitioner's
application for compassionate appointment was subsequently rejected by the
District Level Committee (DLC) on 07.07.2023, on the ground that the petitioner
had made her application beyond the stipulated time period for submission of
the application for compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved, the petitioner
filed a writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No.395/2024, praying for compassionate
appointment, by taking a stand that the application had been filed within time.
The learned Single Judge dismissed WP(C) No.395/2024, vide order dated
15.07.2024, by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari , reported in 2023 0 Supreme
SC 191, wherein it was held that financial condition of the family of the
deceased at the time of death of the deceased, is the primary consideration that
ought to guide the authorities' decision for compassionate appointment, when
the family is unable to make two ends meet. The Supreme Court further held
that in a case of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming
compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense
Page No.# 4/6
of immediacy for mitigating the loss caused to the family of the deceased is
diluted and lost. It further held that after many years had passed, the financial
circumstances of the family of the deceased may have changed, for the better,
since the time of death of the government employee. In such circumstances,
the Courts or the authorities were 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. It further held that 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. It thus held that a claim for compassionate appointment may
not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death
of the government employee.
4. The writ petition of the petitioner having been rejected in terms of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Debabrata Tiwari(supra), the petitioner
filed a writ appeal, i.e. W.A. No.273/2024. The Division Bench of this Court vide
order dated 16.08.2024 dismissed W.A. No.273/2024, by holding that it did not
find any merit in the appeal, for interference with the decision of the learned
Single Judge.
5. The review petitioner has now filed the present review petition, on the
ground that even as late as March, 2025, this Court had directed similar cases
to be considered by the concerned State authorities for compassionate
appointment. However, the petitioner has not produced any order to that effect,
showing that the Division Bench has passed any direction in similar matters to
Page No.# 5/6
the State authorities, to decide the issue of grant of compassionate appointment
to similarly situated persons.
6. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to show that a case
of review has been made out. Further, in the case of Union of India Vs.
Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2013) 8 SCC
337, it has been held by the Supreme Court that a review will not be
maintainable as under:-
"(1) A repetition of old and overruled argument
is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications, (ii) Minor mistakes of
inconsequential import, (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with
the original hearing of the case, (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the
material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its
soundness or results in miscarriage of justice, (v) A review is by no means
an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and
corrected but lies only for patent error, (vi) The mere possibility of two
views on the subject cannot be a ground for review, (vii) The error
apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be
fished out and searched, (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is
fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be
advanced in the review petition, and (ix) Review is not maintainable when
the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been
negatived."
7. On considering the review petition, we do not find any case for review
having been made out by the review petitioner, inasmuch as, the submission of
the counsel for the review petitioner does not change the fact that the decision
of the Courts had been made on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court
Page No.# 6/6
in Debabrata Tiwari(supra), which still holds the field, as on date. The
review petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
