Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 997 (GAU)

W. P. (C) No. 3179 of 2025 v. State of Assam

2025-06-11

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

body2025
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. 1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed in connection with a claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that his father, Kamal Uddin Choudhury, who was working as Assistant Language Teacher of Tantoo M.E. School, Hailakandi had died in harness on 30.06.2012. The petitioner who claims to be eligible had applied for appointment on compassionate ground which was not considered on the ground of qualification. The petitioner had thereafter, filed WP(C)/1639/2023 in which an order was passed 24.03.2023 for consideration of the case of the petitioner. Thereafter, the District Level Committee (hereinafter DLC), Hailakandi in its meeting held on 19.09.2023 had recommended the case of the petitioner. However, due to the impugned Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024, the consideration of the petitioner cannot be done and hence, this writ petition. 3. I have heard Shri AH Alamgir, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri B. Deuri, learned State Counsel and Shri G. Pegu, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the OM dated 18.09.2024 is unreasonable and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the said OM is based on the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari, (2023) SCC Online SC 219 and the facts of the said case were distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 5. Per contra, Shri B. Deuri, learned State Counsel has submitted that the death of the government servant being in the year 2012, no case for appointment on compassionate ground can be made out now and therefore, the petitioner would not have the locus to maintain the present challenge qua the OM dated 18.09.2024. 6. By endorsing the submission made by the learned State Counsel, Shri Pegu, learned Standing Counsel of the Department has submitted that the OM dated 18.09.2024 is in sync with the objective of the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground. 7. The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. 8. 6. By endorsing the submission made by the learned State Counsel, Shri Pegu, learned Standing Counsel of the Department has submitted that the OM dated 18.09.2024 is in sync with the objective of the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground. 7. The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. 8. The materials on record make it clear that the death of the father of the petitioner was on 30.06.2012 and as per the averments made in paragraph 3, the petitioner claims to have applied for appointment on compassionate ground which was not considered on the ground of under- qualification. However, neither any documents nor any details of such application or rejection have been given. It is further not explained as to what took the petitioner more than a decade to approach this Court by filing WP(C)/1639/2023. 9. There is another aspect of the matter with regard to the very objective of the scheme for compassionate appointment. The very objective of the scheme, which is an exception to the general mode of recruitment is to give immediate succor to a family which has lost its sole breadwinner who was a Government servant and such objective would not survive after a gap of about 13 years. 10. The law on compassionate appointment has been elaborately explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra). In the said case, almost all the earlier cases on the subject of compassionate appointment have been discussed and the principles have been laid down. It has been reiterated that an appointment on compassionate ground is a departure from the normal rule and is an exception which is meant only to enable the bereaved family to tie over the sudden financial crisis on the death of a government servant while in service. It has also been clarified that it is not a vested right and the aspect of delay would be of paramount consideration. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow- “7.2. 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. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow- “7.2. 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 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. (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.” 11. On the aspect of delay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), while examining the said aspect from the context of the scheme has also laid down that even if the delay is on account of the authorities, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. The relevant part as observed in paragraph 7.5 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below:- “7.5. The relevant part as observed in paragraph 7.5 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below:- “7.5. 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, an noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as thought 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.” 12. An appointment on compassionate ground is a departure from the normal mode of recruitment wherein a certain quota (5%) is reserved and the objective is to enable a bereaved family losing their sole breadwinner who was a Government servant to overcome the immediate financial crisis. It has been laid down that such appointment cannot be held to be a matter of any vested right and it is not a source of recruitment. 13. In the instant case, an argument has been made that the OM dated 18.09.2024 is unreasonable as the same is based on the aforesaid case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) and the facts are distinguishable. It has been argued that while in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), the delay was of 17 to 18 years, in the instant case, there is no such delay. 14. The aforesaid argument is clearly fallacious. It has been argued that while in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), the delay was of 17 to 18 years, in the instant case, there is no such delay. 14. The aforesaid argument is clearly fallacious. In the instant case, though the delay is not 17 to 18 years but about 13 years, the very objective of appointment on compassionate ground is to give immediate succor. Therefore, whether it is 17 to 18 years or about 13 years, there is no substantial difference. In the said decision of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), it has been clearly laid down that in case of prolonged delay either on the part of the applicant or the authorities, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. In view of such law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has no other option but to hold that any further direction for consideration of the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground after a period of about 13 years from the death of a Government servant would not be in sync with the objective of the scheme for compassionate appointment. 15. Accordingly, this Court is not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioner. 16. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.