Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010134902017 2022:GAU-AS:5323 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4273/2017 MONOJ KUMAR DAS S/O. LT. PRADIP KUMAR DAS, VILL. BARJALAH IRRIGATION COLONY, P.O. TANGLA, DIST. UDALGURI, BTAD. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER MANGALDAI DIST. DARRANG. 3:THE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE DARRANG MANGALDAI. 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPTT. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003. 5:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MANGALDAI DIVISION IRRIGATION MANGALDAI DIST. DARRANG Page No.# 2/6 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.T BARUAH, MR.B HALDAR,MR.H RAHMAN,MR.R SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION, DR.B AHMED,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 30.04.2026 Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department, appearing for the respondent nos.1, 4 and 5, and Mr. S. Baruah, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent nos.2 and 3. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and for the purpose to set aside the order dated 24.10.2012, passed by the Executive Engineer, Mangaldai Division (Irrigation), Mangaldai, intimating the reasons of rejection of the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. The father of the petitioner, Pradip Kumar Das, while working as a regular driver in the Office of the Assistant Engineer Tangla Sub-Division (Irrigation), under Mangaldai Irrigation Division, had died in harness on 10.07.2005. 4. It is projected in the writ petition that the petitioner had thereafter, submitted an application for consideration of his appointment on compassionate grounds on 25.12.2005. The said application of the petitioner was placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 15.02.2007 and 19.05.2007. However, the case of the petitioner was not recommended for such appointment. Being aggrieved the petitioner had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C).No.2660/2007, and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.09.2007, proceeded to direct the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioner Page No.# 3/6 before the constituted Committee for consideration of his case in terms of the guidelines laid down. It is further projected by the petitioner that in the subsequent meeting of the jurisdictional District Committee held on 15.02.2008, the name of the petitioner was again not considered. The case of the petitioner was also not considered in the manner required in the meeting of the jurisdictional District Committee held on 29.04.2008 and 12.06.2008. The petitioner being aggrieved by non consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds, had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C).No.3961/2012. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.11.2014, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the decisions in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das Vs. State of Assam reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674, if not already considered and rejected. In pursuance to the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2014, in WP(C).No.3961/2012, the Executive Engineer, Mangaldai Division (Irrigation), Mangaldai, vide communication dated 24.10.2012, informed the petitioner the reasons for rejecting his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. The father of the petitioner had died in harness on 10.07.2005. The case of the petitioner is found to have been placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on various occasions. However, the case of the petitioner was found to have not been considered on account of there being no vacancy for the purpose within 5% quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds. The said aspect of the matter was communicated to the petitioner, vide the communication dated 24.10.2012. 7. This Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra) had laid down the following principles with regard to consideration of the case of an applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds. Page No.# 4/6 “(7) Having understood the principles governing compassionate appointment as deducible from the pronouncements of the apex Court and in the light of what has been discussed above, this Court is of the view that it will only be just and appropriate to lay down the under noted principles on the basis of which, henceforth, claims relating to compassionate appointment will have to be considered: I. All pending applications against existing and available vacancies as per the quota earmarked including the cases of the petitioners in the present cases and all others, who may not be before the court, shall be decided in accordance with the proposed directions to be laid down in the present order and also in accordance with the principles noted in the preceding paragraphs of this order. This will be done within a period of 4 (four) months from today, The present direction naturally has to be considered as a one-time measure in view of the subsequent direction as laid down in the succeeding paragraphs. II. The District Head of each Department will intimate the vacancies as and when such vacancies occur, to the Court Appointed District Level Committees for its scrutiny. There will be no delay in such intimation. III. The District Level Committee will be constituted by the Deputy commissioner of the District and the Superintendent of Police. The deputy Commissioner himself will sit in the Committee. The district Head (s) of such departments in which vacancies are available shall be co-opted as the additional Members of the Committee. IV. The District Level Committee will meet once every 2 (two)months on the last Saturday of the second month. V. The District Level Committee will decide as to who amongst the eligible candidates is entitled to compassionate appointment. To the extent possible such appointments will be recommended to be made within the District. In making the recommendations for appointments, the District Level committee will take into account the financial condition of the family of the deceased and on a relative consideration of the cases will make its recommendation. There will be Page No.# 5/6 no selection and "seniority of the claim" will not be resorted to unless two or more eligible candidates are at par. VI. To decide on the question of financial status of the family of a claimant regard will be had to the following factors as laid down in g. M. Vs. Kunti Tiwari (supra) (a) Gratuity amount received/receivable. (b) Family pension payable. (c) Provident Fund Amount received/receivable. (d) Any ex-gratia payment made or payable. (c) Proceeds of LIC Policy and other investments of the deceased. (f) Income of the family from other sources. (g) Employment of other family members. (h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any. VII. The recommendations of the District Level Committee will be considered by a State Level Committee consisting of the Chief secretary and the Senior Financial Commissioner of the State. The Commissioner and Secretary of the Department (s) in which vacancies are available will be co-opted as Additional Members of the State Level Committee. VII. The State Level Committee will meet once every 3 (three) months. IX. All vacancies available against the quota of compassionate appointment must be filled up within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of occurrence of the vacancy in accordance with the present directions. X. If the applications of eligible candidates remain pending and cannot be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of 2 (two)years from the date of making such applications, all such applications will require no further consideration and must be understood to have spent their force.” 8. In terms of Principle No.X as noticed, hereinabove, an application submitted by a claimant for appointment on compassionate grounds, if remains, unconsidered for want of vacancy, such application after period of 02 (two) years shall be deemed to have lost its force. The application submitted by the petitioner in the matter way back on 19.01.2006, was placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee on various occasions, but was not considered for want of vacancy, has to be held to have spent its force in terms of Principle No.X, of decision of this Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra). Accordingly, the Page No.# 6/6 claim of the petitioner made in the present writ petition would not mandate any acceptance. 9. Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court also would observe that the father of the petitioner had died in harness on 10.07.2005, and thereafter, it is seen that more than 20 (twenty) years have passed and the claim of the petitioner in the meantime has rendered a stale one. 10. It is a settled position of law, such stale claim cannot be directed to be so considered for appointment on compassionate grounds [refer State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors., reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219] 11. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant