Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And Othrs on 7 January, 2026

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                            Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010242952025




                                                                      2026:GAU-AS:254

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

                             Case No. : WP(C)/6410/2025

         KABIR AHMED CHOUDHURY
         S/O- LATE SAMIR UDDIN CHOUDHURY, R/O- VILL- GONIRGRAM PT- IV,
         P.O- GONIRGRAM, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
         DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

         2:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
          CACHAR
          REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          CACHAR
          P.O DIST. CACHAR
         ASSAM
          PIN- 788001

         3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PHE
          SILCHAR
          DIVISION NO.1
          SILCHAR
          P.OSILCHAR
          DIST- CACHAR. ASSAM
                                       BEFORE
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

                   For the Petitioner(s)    : Mr. F. A. Laskar, Advocate
                   For the Respondent(s)   : Mr. A. Chakraborty, Government Advocate
                                           : Mr. I. Borthakur, SC, PHE
                                                                         Page No.# 2/6



                 ·    Date on which Judgment was reserved       : N/A

                 ·    Date of Pronouncement of Judgment        : 07.01.2026

                 ·    Whether the pronouncement is of
                      the Operative Part of the Judgment       : No

                 ·    Whether the full Judgment has been
                      Pronounced                               : Yes


                         JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. F. A. Laskar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. A. Chakraborty, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and 2 and Mr. I. Borthakur, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.3.

2. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment vide the impugned resolution of the DLC Cachar dated 16.08.2025 and further has sought for a mandamus directing the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to place and consider the case of the Petitioner again before the District Level Committee for compassionate appointment in the concerned Department or any other Department as per the OM dated 01.06.2015.

3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant petition is that the Petitioner's father Late Samir Uddin Choudhury was a Grade-IV employee in the Office of the Executive Engineer, PHE, Silchar Division No.1, Silchar, Cachar. Unfortunately he expired on 03.03.2017 leaving behind his widow Page No.# 3/6

and three sons including the Petitioner. The petitioner applied on 29.05.2017 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015.

4. It is seen that on various occasions, the Petitioner's applications were considered and thereupon rejected and the last of such rejection was on the basis of resolution dated 16.08.2025 in the Minutes of the District Level Committee Meeting on compassionate appointment. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court.

5. It is relevant to take note of that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment and is also an exception to the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution.

6. It is further seen from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712 wherein the Supreme Court had categorically held that there is no

right to claim appointment on compassionate grounds. Paragraph Nos. 32 and 33 of the said judgment being relevant are reproduced herein 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 Page No.# 4/6

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.

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 Page No.# 5/6

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."

7. In the instant case, it would be seen that the State of Assam had vide the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 formulated a policy to grant appointment on compassionate grounds solely for the purpose of providing immediate succor to such a family where the sole breadearner expires while in service. Under such circumstances, the policy of compassionate appointment being an exception to the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution, the case of the Petitioner has to come strictly within the ambit of the said policy.

8. It is seen from Principle No.10 as mentioned in the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 that if the application of an eligible candidate remains pending and cannot be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of two years from the date of making of such application would require no further consideration and must be understood to have spent their force.

9. In that view of the matter, as nothing has been brought out before this Court that there was illegality in rejection of the Petitioner's application Page No.# 6/6

within 28.05.2019 i.e. two years from the date of application filed by the Petitioner, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the decision of the Respondent Authorities to reject the claim of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

10. Considering the above, this Court finds the present case not a fit case for issuance of notice and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Bijoy           Digitally signed
                by Bijoy Saha
                                                                          JUDGE

Saha            Date: 2026.01.07
                17:31:36 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant