[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 5 January, 2026
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010194122018
2026:GAU-AS:76
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6312/2018
TUNIMA SONOWAL
D/O- GOLAP SONOWAL, R/O- DAHUTIACHUK, P.O- DAHUTIACHUK, P.S
AND DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN- 786125
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI- 6
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPTT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 06
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DIST- TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN- 786125
4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD
TINSUKIA RURAL ROAD DIVISION
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN- 78612
Page No.# 2/4
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. H Talukdar
Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. JK Goswami, Govt. Advocate, Assam
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
05.01.2026
Heard Mr. H Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. JK Goswami, the learned
Government Advocate who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1
and 3. None appears on behalf of the PWD when the matter is called
upon.
2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of
the respondent authorities in not considering the case of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment.
3. From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner's father
Late Gopal Sonowal was a Grade IV employee, who died in harness
on 17.07.2003, leaving behind the petitioner, her mother i.e. the wife
of the deceased and two younger sisters of the petitioners. The
petitioner initially applied in the year 2004 and on account of non-
consideration, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court
which was registered and numbered as WP(C)No.4455/2014. The said
Page No.# 3/4
writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the case of
the petitioner against the available vacancies. Thereupon, on account
of non-consideration, the petitioner has approached this Court by way
of filing the present writ petition.
4. It is no longer res integra that compassionate appointment is not
a regular source of recruitment. It is an exception to the provisions of
Article 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in the case of
State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., reported in
(2025) 5 SCC 712 had categorically laid down that 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. 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 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.
Page No.# 4/4
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 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."
5. In the instant case, the petitioner has been able to sustain her
livelihood for the last 22 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. Accordingly, this Court does
not find any merit in the instant writ petition, for which, the writ
petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
