Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 28 January, 2026

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                 Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010063632020




                                                           2026:GAU-AS:969

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

                        Case No. : WP(C)/2508/2020

         RAM KRISHNA DEKA
         S/O- LATE MALEN CHANDRA DEKA, R/O- VILL AND P.O- LAKSHIMAR, P.S
         AND DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF
         ASSAM, PWD DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006

         2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE
          REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF
         ASSAM
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI- 781006

         3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
          PWD(MECHANICAL)
         ASSAM
          CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI- 781003

         4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          BONGAIGAON CUM CHAIRMAN
          DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
          BONGAIGAON
          P.O- BONGAIGAON
          DIST- BONGAIGAON
         ASSAM

         5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          PWD (MECHANICAL) ABHAYAPURI DIVISION
                                                                    Page No.# 2/8

        ABHAYAPURI
        DIST- BONGAIGAON
        ASSA

                                  BEFORE
         HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

For the petitioner (s)   : Mr. M. Deka, Advocate

For the respondent (s) : Ms. M. Bhattacharjee,
                         Govt. Advocate

Date on which judgment is reserved       : NA

Date of pronouncement of judgment            : 28.01.2026

Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment?              : NA

Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced?                                   : Yes

                         JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. M. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for quashing the speaking order dated 23.12.2019 and further directing the Respondent Authorities to consider the appointment of the petitioner against Page No.# 3/8

available Grade-IV post or suitable vacant post under the respondent No.3 in terms with the recommendation of the District Level Committee vide the Minutes dated 07.03.2014.

3. At the outset, it is relevant to take note of that at the time of filing of the writ petition in the year 2020, the petitioner age was 40 years old. The petitioner's father, who was working as Roller Driver under the Executive Engineer, PWD Mechanical Division, Abhayapuri, expired on 20.04.1999 leaving behind his wife/widow and the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon submitted an application on 31.07.1999.

4. It is seen that the District Level Committee had rejected the application of the petitioner by the Minutes dated 19.06.2008 and this rejection order was put to challenge by the petitioner in a writ petition being WP(C) No.616/2014. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 07.02.2014, passed a direction to reconsider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment keeping in view the decision of this Court in the case of Ajit Pator vs. State of Assam, reported in 2009 (3) GLT 306. It is seen that thereupon the petitioner's application

was again rejected vide another Minutes dated 25.03.2014, which necessitated the petitioner to file another writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.1383/2015. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Page No.# 4/8

an order dated 27.04.2015, taking into account that the petitioner had been recommended subsequently by the District Level Committee, Bongaigaon in the meantime, had directed to consider the case of the petitioner by the State Level Committee within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the said order.

5. The record further reveals that the State Level Committee thereupon, in the Minutes held on 31.10.2015, disqualified the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had survived more than 10 years after the death of the father. This resulted in the petitioner again filing another writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.435/2016. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 06.06.2016 had set aside the rejection of the petitioner's candidature and directed the State Level Committee to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the next meeting solely on the merits of the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner's application was again rejected by the speaking order dated 22.11.2018 and the petitioner thereupon challenged the said speaking order dated 22.11.2018 by filing another writ petition being WP(C) No.1111/2019. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 01.03.2019 again directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner within the period Page No.# 5/8

of three months by the State Level Committee from the date of receipt of the certified copy.

6. It is seen that subsequent thereto, in another meeting of the State Level Committee held on 23.12.2019, the petitioner's application was rejected as the petitioner's father had less than three years of service remaining and his candidature could be further reconsidered. It is under such circumstances that the petitioner has therefore approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

7. From a perusal of the materials on record it is seen that this Court vide an order dated 17.06.2020 issued notice. No affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

8. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has given an anxious consideration to the materials on record.

9. The law is well settled as regards the compassionate appointment. It is no longer res integra that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment. The appointment on compassionate basis is made on the basis of a policy of the State to provide immediate succour to the bereaved family upon the death of the sole bread earner of the family. Therefore, appointment on the basis of compassionate basis being an Page No.# 6/8

exception to Article 16 of the Constitution, it has to be strictly in terms with the mandate of the policy of the Government. It is also well settled that such policy of the Government to grant appointment on compassionate basis does not confer any right. In this regard, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari, reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712 wherein

the various parameters have been duly laid down. Paragraph Nos.32 and 33 of the said judgment being relevant are reproduced hereinunder:

"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 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 Page No.# 7/8

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 bread earner 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 Page No.# 8/8

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 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."

10. In the instant case, the petitioner has been able to sustain his livelihood for the last 27 years. It is the opinion of this Court that this is not a fit case wherein directions can be issued for consideration of the case of the petitioner at this stage.

11. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant