Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 76 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 6 January, 2026

                                                                  Page No.# 1/11

GAHC010078462024




                                                             2026:GAU-AS:338

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

                        Case No. : WP(C)/2294/2024

         MOHAN KUMAR
         S/O LATE SURESH KUMAR
         R/O VIL- BARJALAH, P.O. AND P.S. TANGLA, DIST. UDALGURI, ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
         OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06

         2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE
          FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT (SLC)
          REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-781006

         3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER OF IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT

          ASSAM
          CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI-781003

         4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

          DARRANG
          MANGALDOI
          PIN-784125

         5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

          MANGALDOI DIVISION (IRRIGATION)
          MANGALDOI
                                                                               Page No.# 2/11

             PIN-78412

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. B CHETRI, MS. D J BORAH,MR. S CHETRY

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, IRRIGATION

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Date : 06-01-2026

Heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. D.S. Neog,

learned standing counsel, Irrigation Department, Assam appearing for the respondent

Nos. 1, 3 & 5 and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam representing

respondent Nos. 2 & 4.

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding has prayed for a

direction upon the respondent authorities, more particularly, the State Level Committee

(SLC), to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds

by reckoning the proposal submitted in this connection by the jurisdictional District Level

Committee (DLC).

3. The father of the petitioner Suresh Kumar while serving as Gr-IV employee in the

establishment of the Executive Engineer, Mangaldai Division (Irrigation) had died-in-

harness on 20-02-2017. The petitioner proximate to the time of demise of his submitted

an application, complete in all respect, for consideration of his case for appointment on

compassionate ground. The application submitted by the petitioner not being considered,

the petitioner had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being W.P.(C) Page No.# 3/11

No. 4135/2021. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 07-

09-2022 with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the

petitioner against any Gr-IV post in terms of the provision of Office Memorandum dated

01-06-2015. The case of the petitioner, accordingly, was placed before the jurisdictional

DLC and the said Committee in its meeting held on 10-10-2022, considered the

application of the petitioner and forwarded the same to the Government for further

necessary approval. The case of the petitioner was thereafter placed before the SLC in its

meeting held on 26-06-2023. However, in absence of any vacancy being available, the

case of the petitioner was not favourably recommended by the SLC, in its meeting held on

26-06-2023 and the departmental authorities were required to ascertain availability of

suitable vacancy according to the qualification of the petitioner and to place the matter

before the SLC. It is at this juncture that the respondent authorities had issued a

notification dated 18-09-2024 by which the scheme for appointment on compassionate

grounds in respect of State Government employee who had died-in-harness prior to 31-

03-2017 was withdrawn. The said development had, however, taken place after filing of

the present writ petition which was so instituted on 29-04-2024. Being aggrieved by non-

consideration of his case, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the facts noticed,

hereinabove, has submitted that there being no proper consideration of the case of the

petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and his case being only kept

pending on account of absence of due vacancies for the purpose of his such

appointments, vacancies being now available, Mr. Chetri submits that appropriate Page No.# 4/11

directions are required to be issued to the respondent authorities to give a due and

proper consideration to the case of the petitioner, herein, for appointment on

compassionate grounds. Mr. Chetri submits that although the father of the petitioner had

died-in-harness on 20-02-2017, the delay occasioning in the matter in appointing the

petitioner on compassionate grounds cannot be considered in view of the fact that the

petitioner was not given a due and proper consideration of his case for appointment on

compassionate grounds. Mr. Chetri submits that the OM dated 18-09-2024 was assailed

before this Court by similarly situated persons and a Coordinate Bench of this Court had

vide order dated 03-04-2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 342/2025 and other analogous

matters directed for consideration of the cases of the petitioner by the jurisdictional DLC/

SLC on merit by taking into consideration the various guidelines as existing prior to 01-04-

2017. Mr. Chetri submits that the petitioner being similarly situated like the petitioners in

W.P.(C) No. 342/2025, a similar direction as passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court

vide order dated 03-04-2025 is also required to be passed in respect of the present

petitioner.

5. Per contra, Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam submits that more

than 08 (eight) years have lapsed since the date of death of the father of the petitioner,

herein. He submits that both the DLC as well as the SLC having not found any vacancy in

the parent department, information was sought for by the SLC in its meeting held on 26-

06-2023 about existence of such vacancies in other departments. Mr. Dhar submits that

the case of the petitioner was not recommended by the constituted committee only on

the ground of absence of vacancies for consideration of his case for appointment on Page No.# 5/11

compassionate grounds. Mr. Dhar submits that the competent authority had withdrawn

the scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds vide issuance of OM dated 18-09-

2024. He submits that the said OM not being under challenge in the present writ petition,

no further direction is called upon to be passed with regard to further consideration of the

case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. Mr. Dhar by referring to

the delay occasioning in the matter since the date of the father of the petitioner has by

relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of W.B. Vs.

Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712 submitted that the petitioner

is not entitled to a direction for consideration of his case for appointment on

compassionate ground, at this stage.

6. Ms. D.S. Neog, learned standing counsel, Irrigation Department, Assam has

adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. Dhar, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam

appearing for the State respondents.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials

available on record.

8. The facts noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute. The father of the petitioner had

died on 20-02-2017 in harness. Although the petitioner had submitted his application

proximate to the time of death of his father, the case of the petitioner was placed before

the jurisdictional DLC in its meeting held on 10-10-2022. However, it is seen that no

recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner in this connection and the matter

was forwarded to the Government for necessary approval. Thereafter, the case of the

petitioner was placed before the SLC in its meeting held on 26-06-2023 and again in Page No.# 6/11

absence of any vacancy within the 5% quota mandated for appointment on

compassionate grounds being found to exist in the department, no recommendation

favourable to the petitioner came to be made by the SLC. However, the SLC directed the

department, i.e. the Irrigation Department to ascertain availability of suitable vacancies

according to qualification of the applicant and revert back to the Committee with the

vacancy status for further consideration. It is at this stage, the respondent authorities had

issued the OM dated 18-09-2024 by which the scheme of appointment on compassionate

grounds was withdrawn and it was provided that no application for appointment on

compassionate grounds shall be considered and/ or placed before the constituted SLC

and/ or the jurisdictional DLC. The petitioner projects in the present writ petition that he

was denied of a due consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds

and accordingly, submits that inspite of the delay occasioning in the matter, respondents

are required to be directed to consider his case for appointment on compassionate

grounds. The petitioner in this connection has relied upon the order dated 03-04-2025

passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 342/2025 ( Abdul Qudir

Baksi Vs. State of Assam & Ors. ). This Court has perused the order dated 03-04-2025

and finds that in the said cases challenge was to the OM dated 18-09-2024. The

Coordinate Bench of this Court, appreciating the concession made by the Government

before it to the effect that all cases pending before the Court challenging the impugned

OM dated 18-09-2024 shall be considered by the concerned authorities on merit,

proceeded to pass the following directions:

"9. In view of the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, all the writ Page No.# 7/11

petitions that are pending as on today, i.e., 03.04.2025, in the Gauhati High Court, which have put to challenge the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024, are to be decided as follows:-

(i) All the applications for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioners shall be considered and disposed of by the concerned DLC/SLC on merit, by taking into consideration the various guidelines prior to 01.04.2017, laid down by the State Government for compassionate appointment and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court. Consequently, the rejection of all compassionate appointments by the DLC/SLC, which have been put to challenge and are pending in the Gauhati High Court as on 03.04.2025, are set aside.

(ii) The entire process for considering the various applications for compassionate appointment and the decision to be taken in each case by the concerned authorities, should be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the concerned District Commissioner, who is also the Chairman of the DLC, if the matter pertains to the DLC. In other cases, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, who is the Chairman of the SLC, if the matter pertains the SLC."

A perusal of the direction passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order

dated 03-04-2025 would reveal that the same is limited only to the writ petition pending

before this Court wherein the challenge is to the OM dated 18-09-2024. Accordingly, in

the present proceeding the OM dated 18-09-2024 being not under challenge, the said

direction passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03-04-2025

cannot be extended to the petitioner, herein. Having drawn the said conclusions, this

Court would refer to the decision in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. Vs. State

of Assam & Ors. reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674 while laying down the principles

required to be followed for consideration of claims relating to compassionate appointment

had laid down that if the application of eligible candidates remained pending and cannot

be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of 2(two) years from the date of Page No.# 8/11

making of such application, all such applications would require no further consideration.

The SLC, in its meeting held on 26-06-2023, having rejected the case of the petitioner,

admittedly, on absence of vacant post available for appointing the petitioner on

compassionate grounds, the application of the petitioner must be held to have lost its

force within 2 years thereafter. The said prescription as made in the case of Achyut

Ranjan Das (Supra) was reiterated by this Court in the case of Fazirul Nessa & Ors.

Vs State of Assam & Ors., reported in (2010) 4 GLT 340.

9. At this stage, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

Debabrata Tiwari (Supra) is required to be noticed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

said decision had drawn the following conclusions:-

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

i. 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.

ii. 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 dependents 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.

iii. 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.

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

v. 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 Page No.# 9/11

family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependents 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 dependents 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 act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate 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.

34. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependents of the deceased employee being employed on compassionate grounds. The financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the time of the death of the deceased, is the primary consideration that ought to guide the authorities' decision in the matter.

35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of 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 and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, 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 source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh 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 relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents 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.

36. Laches or undue delay, the blame-worthy conduct of a person in approaching a Court of Equity in England for obtaining discretionary relief which disentitled him for grant of such relief was explained succinctly by Sir Barnes Peacock, in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong, [1874] 3 P.C. 221 as under:

"Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation, in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute or limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of Justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy."

37. Whether the above doctrine of laches which disentitled grant of relief to a party by Equity Court of England, could disentitle the grant of relief to a person by the High Court in the exercise of Page No.# 10/11

its power under Article 226 of our Constitution, came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M. R. Meher, President, Industrial Court, Bombay, AIR 1967 SC 1450. In the said case, it was regarded as a principle that disentitled a party for grant of relief from a High Court in the exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

38. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 this Court restated the principle articulated in earlier pronouncements in the following words:

"9. ... the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this Rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction."

39. While we are mindful of the fact that there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, ordinarily, a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time, vide Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538; NDMC v. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278.

40. Further, simply because the Respondents-Writ Petitioners submitted their applications to the relevant authority in the year 2005- 2006, it cannot be said that they diligently perused the matter and had not slept over their rights. In this regard, it may be apposite to refer to the decision of this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, wherein the following observations were made:

"19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time."

10. Applying the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata

Tiwari (Supra) to the facts of the present case, it is seen that the father of the

petitioner had expired on 20-02-2017. The consideration that is now sought to be made in

respect of the petitioner herein, for appointment on compassionate grounds is a

consideration so required to be made after a lapse of around 08 years. The sense of

immediacy in the matter of compassionate appointment in respect of the petitioner has

been lost. Such delay is attributable to both the authorities of the State as well as the

petitioner; however, entertaining the claim at this point of time would be of no avail, Page No.# 11/11

because, admittedly, the petitioner has been able to eke out a living even though he was

not favoured with an appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, this Court is of

the considered view that it is not a fit case to direct the respondent authorities to consider

the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

11. In view of the foregoing discussions and conclusions reached herein above by this

Court, this Court is of the considered view that the issue involved in the present

proceeding being a stale issue, it would not be permissible for this Court to issue any

direction requiring consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on

compassionate grounds in pursuance to death of his father, in harness, occasioning in the

year 2017.

12. In view of the above, this Court having concluded that the scheme for appointment

on compassionate grounds, on account of delay so occasioning in the matter having been

rendered to be a stale one, no direction in this connection would be called to be issued.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same stands

dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant