Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010064092023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1718/2023 PRASANTA DHAR S/O- LATE KAJAL DHAR , R/O- R. K MISION ROAD, WARD NO- 16, P.O- BIDYAPARA, P.S- DHUBRI, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DIRECTOR INLAND WATER TRANSPORT ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI PIN-781007 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DIVISION ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI PIN-781007 4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE REP BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHUBRI PIN-783301 5:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE ASSAM REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE CHIEF SECRETARY Page No.# 2/5 GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 6:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURSE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D K ROY, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, TRANSPORT, SC. WATER RESOURCE DEPTT.,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 06.02.2026 Heard Shri D. K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharya, learned Govt. Advocate, Ms. M. D. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department as well as Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the Water Resources Department. 2. The claim in the present writ petition is for a consideration for appointment on compassionate ground, which compassion is sought to be invoked on the demise of the father of the petitioner, which took place on 15.03.2013. It is the case of the petitioner that after the death of his father, the petitioner had submitted an application on 07.05.2013 to the Department for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. When no process was undertaken after 6 years of filing such application, the petitioner approached this Court for the first time in the year 2019 by preferring WP(C)/8367/2019. By the order dated 15.11.2019, this Court had directed the Director of Inland Water Transport, Ulubari to do the needful for forwarding the case of the petitioner for Page No.# 3/5 consideration by the District Level Committee, Dhubri for appointment on compassionate grounds. The case of the petitioner came to be rejected in the meeting held on 22.09.2021. Aggrieved, the petitioner had thereafter preferred WP(C)/947/2023 which was dismissed as withdrawn. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was erroneously withdrawn, when there were no such instructions from the client. Be that as it may, the petitioner thereafter submitted an application on 30.12.2022 in the reply to the application filed under the RTI, the petitioner was informed that he did not fulfill the criteria required as the deceased did not have a minimum balance of 3 years of service at the time of his death. Having not proceeded further in the matter thereafter, this present writ petition was filed on 22.03.2023 after this Court had in WP(C)/1646/2021 struck down the conditions laid down in the Office Memorandum by which the case of the petitioner had been informed to be rejected as per the information supplied in reply to his application under the RTI, Act. The petitioner thereafter filed WP(C)/1718/2023 on 22.03.2023 praying for consideration of his case. 4. The order dated 30.01.2023 passed in WP(C)/1646/2021 has been carried out in appeal by the State in Writ Appeal/287/2023. For a ready reference, the relevant portion of the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court is quoted herein below:- “20. Though we have taken the argument of the learned Advocate General with some seriousness that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Debabrata Tiwari (supra) prohibits compassionate appointment after long passage of time, but in the present set of cases, closing the chapter for the private respondents would not be appropriate. 21. We thus affirm the relegating order passed by the learned Single Judge. Page No.# 4/5 22. While making such application before the concerned authorities, the private respondents, we may caution, must not entertain any false hopes and the concerned authorities also shall consider the “passage of time” aspect seriously while assessing the suitability of the private respondents for compassionate appointment, which would be the most important factor in recommending the cases of the private respondents for compassionate appointment, which ultimately may not withstand the judicial scrutiny if such recommendation is made after a long lapse of time since the death of the deceased employees. 23. 23. With the afore-noted observations, we close these appeals with the hope that the statutory authorities while deciding the cases of the private respondents shall appropriately apply the law with regard to compassionate appointment. 24. The appeals stand disposed off accordingly.” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that keeping in view the contention advanced in paragraph 20 of the aforesaid order, the case of the petitioner deserves to be remanded back to the Department for appropriate consideration. 6. This Court has noticed that the observations made in the paragraph 20 was with regard to those set of cases which was before the Division Bench of this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment of this Court passed by a Coordinate Bench in WP(C)/3079/2023. In that case, the Coordinate Bench has on the facts and circumstances recorded in the order, relegated the matter back to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds strictly in accordance with the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.12.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No. 287/2023 and other analogous matter. Page No.# 5/5 8. The learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by another Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C)/2508/2020 and WP(C)/501/2023. 9. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been duly examined. 10. In the present case it appears that the petitioner had approached this Court for the first time after 6 years from the date of the demise of his father and when he was informed for the first time that his case could not be considered due to the provisions of an Office Memorandum, the petitioner chose not to challenge rejection. It further appears that the petitioner has put up a third claim before this Court, after the second claim had been withdrawn, only when the Coordinate Bench of this Court had struck down the provisions of the Office memorandum. In the present case, it would not be appropriate to relegate the matter back to the Department for fresh consideration. 11. Accordingly, the prayers made in the writ petition are rejected. 12. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant