Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1520 (GAU)

Arif Ali S/o Late Alimot Ali v. State of Assam

2025-09-05

MANISH CHOUDHURY

body2025
JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. By invoking the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner herein has instituted the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :- [A] set aside/quash the impugned minutes/Order dated 03/08/2017 [Annexure-8] issued by the Additional Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home Department vide letter No. ???. 612/2014/105 dated 03.08.2017. [B] direct/command the Respondents to the needful for the purpose of his appointment the Petitioner on Compassionate ground. [C] direct/command the Respondents to take immediate action on the Petitioner's representation dated 15.04.2020. 2. The father of the petitioner, Alimot Ali was working as a Constable in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Golaghat when he died-in-harness on 09.07.1992. At the time of his death, Alimot Ali left behind his wife, a married daughter and a son [the petitioner]. 2.1. From the statements made in the writ petition, and the documents annexed to the writ petition, it is noticed that the petitioner's date of birth is 25.02.1990. The petitioner passed the High School Living Certificate [HSLC] examination in the year 2007, and the Higher Secondary [HS] examination in the year 2009. Thereafter, the petitioner completed the Bachelor of Arts [B.A.] course from the Golaghat Commerce College under the Dibrugarh University. The petitioner also completed a course, P.G. Diploma in Computer Application in the year 2020. 2.2. The petitioner has stated that due to untimely demise of his father in the year 1992, the family of the petitioner was left with no source of income and has been facing financial stringency since then. On the basis of an application submitted by the petitioner on 08.04.2013 seeking his appointment on compassionate ground, a proposal was recommended to be placed before the District Level Committee [DLC] relating to appointment on compassionate ground for consideration. 2.3. The proposal of the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground was placed before the DLC in its meeting, held on 08.10.2013, and the DLC, upon consideration, resolved to recommend the case of the petitioner. On 01.01.2014, the Superintendent of Police, Golaghat forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Director General of Police, Assam along with all the relevant documents and a copy of the Minutes of the DLC meeting, held on 08.10.2013, for further consideration. 2.4. On 01.01.2014, the Superintendent of Police, Golaghat forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Director General of Police, Assam along with all the relevant documents and a copy of the Minutes of the DLC meeting, held on 08.10.2013, for further consideration. 2.4. The proposal regarding appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was, thereafter, placed before the State Level Committee [SLC]. The State Level Committee [SLC] in its meeting, held on 16.10.2015, considered the proposal. After considering the case of the petitioner, the SLC did not recommend the case on the ground of delay in submission of the application. The petitioner was thereafter, informed about the decision taken by the SLC by the Additional Secretary to Government of Assam, Home Department vide an Office Letter dated 03.08.2017. Undeterred by the fact of rejection of the case of the petitioner by the SLC, the petitioner pursued the matter further, and in the subsequent periods, there were correspondences among various authorities, regarding the application of the petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner has stated that another Representation was submitted by him on 15.04.2020 for reconsideration of his case of compassionate appointment. 3. I have heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learning Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for all the respondents. 4. Mr. Bhuyan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stressed on the point that merely because there was late submission the case of the petitioner could not have been rejected. The family of the petitioner had undergone extreme financial stringency after the death of his father on 09.07.1992. At the time of his death, Late Alimot Ali left behind the petitioner and his mother as dependents and there was no Government employee in the family since then. Even as on date, the financial conditions of the petitioner and his family members have not improved much. 5. In response, Ms. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents has submitted that the petitioner submitted his application for appointment on compassionate ground after more than a decade of the death of his father. The matter of appointment on compassionate ground is not a right. In view of such long lapse of time, the object and purpose of providing immediate relief to the family of the petitioner has been lost. The matter of appointment on compassionate ground is not a right. In view of such long lapse of time, the object and purpose of providing immediate relief to the family of the petitioner has been lost. It has been submitted that after considering a long line of decisions delivered in cases of compassionate appointment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others , (2025) 5 SCC 712 , has culled out the principles by which the cases for appointment on compassionate ground are to be examined and as per the principles so culled out, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate ground at such distant point of time. 6. It is settled that, as a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly in adherence to the principles laid down in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment or any other consideration is permissible. The government or the public authorities are not at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the procedure laid down by the rules for the post. This general rule is ordinarily to be followed in every case. However, some exceptions have been carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness. If the employee as the sole breadwinner of the family expires, leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, then in such a case, an appointment on compassionate ground can be made out of pure humanitarian consideration and taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet. It is taking into such humanitarian angle a policy is ordinarily adopted to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The object of granting compassionate appointment is, therefore, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis befallen on it. It is also settled that mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The financial condition of the family of the deceased is required to be examined thoroughly. The object of granting compassionate appointment is, therefore, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis befallen on it. It is also settled that mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The financial condition of the family of the deceased is required to be examined thoroughly. Only if it is found that the family will not be able to meet the crisis that has befallen on it due to the sudden demise of the only breadwinner in the family, the provision for employment on compassionate ground can be resorted to. The posts which can be made open and offered for appointment on compassionate ground, are only posts which fall in the categories of Class-III or Class-IV. 7. It was as early as in the year 1994, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana , ( 1994) 4 SCC 138, has observed as under :- 6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 8. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others , (2025) 5 SCC 712 , after considering a number of precedents on compassionate appointment, has culled out a number of principles which are as 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 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. 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 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. 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. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered the question whether applications for compassionate appointments could be considered after a delay of several years. The Hon’ble Court has held the view that if in a case there is 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 or lost. In such circumstances the 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 sources. 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. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is related to the financial condition and hardships faced by the dependants 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. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in Nabanita Lahkar vs. State of Assam and others , Writ Appeal No. 74/2020 and Nabanita Lahkar vs. State of Assam and others , Review Petition No. 83/2020 has considered a case, similar to the petitioner herein. The father of the writ appellant/review petitioner [‘the appellant’, for short] was an employee in the Forest Department, Government of Assam who died-in-harness on 07.12.1995, leaving behind his wife and two minor daughters with the appellant as the younger daughter. The father of the writ appellant/review petitioner [‘the appellant’, for short] was an employee in the Forest Department, Government of Assam who died-in-harness on 07.12.1995, leaving behind his wife and two minor daughters with the appellant as the younger daughter. Subsequent to the demise of the deceased employee, the appellant submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2007 stating that at the time of her father's death, she was only seven years of age, and the application for compassionate appointment was filed by her after attaining majority. The court, after considering the principles governing the matter of compassionate appointment, has reached the view that the very basis for compassionate appointment stood removed by efflux of time. 11. It also transpires from an Office Letter dated 10.08.2022 of the Superintendent of Police, Golaghat that the DLC had also earlier, on 19.08.2011, rejected a proposal of the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground due to late submission after nineteen years. The said document has been annexed to the counter affidavit of the State respondents and the fact was not disclosed by the petitioner. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner herein was a minor at the time of his father's death on 09.07.1992 as his date of birth is 25.02.1990. It was after sixteen years of his father’s death, the petitioner attained majority in the year 2008. The petitioner after attaining majority in the year 2008 did not submit the application for the next three years till 2011. It was only in the year 2011, he submitted an application before the respondent authorities seeking his appointment on compassionate ground. The said application was rejected by the DLC on 19.08.2011. Subsequently, the case of the petitioner was once again considered by the SLC on 16.10.2015 after a recommendation by the DLC on 08.10.2013. On that occasion also, the case of the petitioner was not recommended. 13. The proposal for the petitioner’s appointment was rejected by the SLC on 16.10.2015 and the petitioner has approached this Court by the writ petition only on 20.08.2025, that is, near about ten years after rejection by the SLC. Such inordinate delay has taken the very basis on which the application for compassionate appointment was to be considered. The writ petition has clearly suffered from delay and laches. By the time the writ petition was preferred, the claim for compassionate appointment had become stale. Such inordinate delay has taken the very basis on which the application for compassionate appointment was to be considered. The writ petition has clearly suffered from delay and laches. By the time the writ petition was preferred, the claim for compassionate appointment had become stale. The staleness of the claim had taken away the very basis of providing compassionate appointment and has, thus, merited its rejection. 14. Thus, the immediacy for providing an earning to the family is also found absent on the date of submission of the application when the principal object behind providing any employment on compassionate ground is taken into consideration. By the time the writ petition has been preferred, a period of thirty-three years has already elapsed since the death of the petitioner’s father on 09.07.1992. 15. In the backdrop of such fact situation, this Court does not find any ground, not to speak of any good and sufficient ground, to proceed further with the writ petition by interfering with the decision taken by the SLC on 16.10.2015 to reject the proposal of the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground and the Office Letter dated 03.08.2017 by which the afore-said decision of the SLC was conveyed to the petitioner. For the reasons discussed above, no direction to consider the Representation dated 15.04.2020 of the petitioner is called for. 16. Consequently, the writ petition having been found devoid of any merit and suffering from delay and laches, is dismissed. There shall however, be no order as to cost.