Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010071842023 2023:GAU-AS:8488 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1924/2023 NAYAN JYOTI BORAH S/O- LATE RAMESWAR BORAH, R/O- KHARAGORUA PATH, INDRA PRASTHA NAGAR, P.O.- RRL, DIST.- JORHAT, PIN- 785006, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT (SLC) REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPT. ASSAM CHENIKUTHI GUWAHATI- 781003. 4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JORHAT DISTRICT ASSAM Page No.# 2/10 PIN- 785001. 5:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPT. UPPER ASSAM ZONE JORHAT DIST- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHETRI, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, A.H and V. DEPT., GA, ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 02/09/2026 Heard Mr. B Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M M Kataky, learned Standing counsel, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 5 and Mr. A Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 & 4. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has presented a challenge to the decision arrived at by the State Level Committee, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, for appointment on compassionate grounds, by holding that the said claim is barred by the provisions of Clause-(1) of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, inasmuch as, the father of the petitioner at the time of his death in harness, had less than 3 (three) years of residual service. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the father of the petitioner, while working as a Grade-III employee (Accountant) in the establishment of the Joint Director, Animal Page No.# 3/10 Husbandry & Veterinary Department, Upper Assam Zone, had died-in-harness on 29.10.2011. The petitioner, thereafter, had submitted an application on 26.12.2011, praying for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The application submitted by the petitioner was placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee and the said committee in its meeting held on 25.11.2013, had proceeded to recommend the case of the petitioner for the year 2007-2008 against a Grade-III post (post not identified). The recommendations of the DLC, not having been taken to its logical conclusion, the petitioner had instituted a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 4220/2022. This Court vide order dated 24.06.2022, noticing that in the meanwhile, the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner by the jurisdictional District Level Committee was considered by the State Level Committee and had rejected the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court considering the issue further had interfered with the decision of the State Level Committee and remanded back the matter to the State Level Committee for a fresh consideration of the case of the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was again placed before the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 13.09.2022 and therein, the said committee proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner, by holding that the father of the petitioner at the time of his death, had a residual service of less than 3 (three) years and accordingly, in terms of the provisions of Clause-(1) of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, no consideration of the application made by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was permissible. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record. 7. The persons similarly situated like the petitioner, herein, had approached this Page No.# 4/10 Court by way of instituting a writ application, assailing the provisions of Clause-(1) of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on a consideration of the issues arising in the matter, was pleased vide judgment & order dated 30.01.2023 in WP(C) No. 1646/2021 and other analogous matters, to strike down the provisions of Clause-(1) of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. The State being aggrieved by the said judgment & order dated 30.01.2023, had assailed the same by way of filing writ appeals, one of which was WA No. 287/2023. 8. The Division Bench of this Court on a consideration of the matter, was pleased vide its judgment & order dated 12.12.2025 passed in WA No. 287/2023 and other analogous matters, to close the said appeal, by affirming the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court. The conclusions drawn by the Division Bench of this Court, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “7. The rationale behind Policy of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship caused due to death of the bread-earner in the family. The claim for compassionate appointment ought not to be delayed as it is an emergent provision to redeem the family in distress. However, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be deemed to be a source of recruitment but only a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. [Refer to Smti. Sushma Gosain & Ors. -Vs- Union of India & Ors. :: (1989) 4 SCC 468; Umesh Kumar Nagpal -Vs- State of Haryana & Ors. :: (1994) 4 SCC 138 and State of Haryana & Anr. -Vs- Ankur Gupta :: (2003) 7 SCC 704]. 8. However, in Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. -Vs- Hakim Singh :: (1997) 8 SCC 85, the Supreme Court cautioned that it should not be forgotten that compassionate appointment is to give succour to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis that befalls the dependants on account of untimely demise of the sole earning member but it would not be justified in directing appointment for claimants on compassionate grounds after long passage of time since death. Such a direction would amount to treating the claim of compassionate appointment as an inherent right. [Also Page No.# 5/10 refer to Jagdish Prasad -Vs- State of Bihar & Anr. :: (1996) 1 SCC 301; I.G. (Karmik) & Ors. -Vs- Prahalad Mani Tripathi :: (2007) 6 SCC 162; Mumtaz Yunus Mulani -Vs- State of Maharashtra :: (2008) 11 SCC 384 and State of J&K & Ors. -Vs- Sajad Ahmed Mir :: (2006) 5 SCC 766]. 9. The Supreme Court recently in Debabrata Tiwari (supra), after analyzing several Supreme Court judgments on the issue, formulated the principles governing compassionate appointment as follows:- “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. 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. Page No.# 6/10 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.” 10. After having formulated the afore-noted principles regarding compassionate appointment, the Supreme Court in the afore-noted case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), while answering the poser whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, held as follows:- “35. ……. 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, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh [Haryana SEB v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 31] 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 relative to the financial condition and hardship 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.” 11. This judgment further took note of the observations of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal & Anr. -Vs- Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors. :: (2013) 12 SCC 179 that “even if the court or Tribunal directs for consideration of Page No.# 7/10 representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance, it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of a representation to the competent authority does not arrest time.” 12. After having said that, we deem it appropriate to examine the correctness of the decision of the learned Single Judge in declaring Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 to be unconstitutional. 13. We find that the classification made on the basis of the remaining service period left for the deceased employee is neither intelligible nor has any nexus with the differentia sought to be achieved. 14. The respondents constitute a homogenous class of persons, whose bread- earners have died in harness. They come within exception laid down in D.S. Nakara (supra). It would be inappropriate for the State to contend that the purpose of the classification was to avoid fraud or misuse. Fraud or misuse may occur, irrespective of the length of service remaining. Limiting the benefits to dependants of the deceased employees, who have 3(three) years of service remaining, does not necessarily reduce the risk of fraudulent claims; a would-be fraudster could equally fabricate or collude in cases where a deceased employee had long remaining service. There is no logical causal connection between the duration of remaining service and the likelihood of such misuse. 15. We find force in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that the claim of the State that the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 is in accordance with the 10(ten) principles enunciated in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra) and the Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2013 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, is factually incorrect. The learned Single Judge did not find any rationale in the draft note preceding the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 was approved by the State Cabinet. 16. The absence of any contemporaneous reasoning diminishes any claim of the State that the choice of 3(three) years was the product of considered administrative Page No.# 8/10 evaluation for it not to be interfered with on the ground of such administrative policy being within the domain of executive and the usual restraint of the Courts in treading in such field. The executive must always conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Policy classifications must not be arbitrary, irrational or discriminatory without an intelligible basis. Compassionate appointment may not be an absolute vested right but it is a benefit conferred by the employer subject to policy conditions. The non-vested status of compassionate employment does not immunize arbitrary classifications from constitutional scrutiny. 17. On these grounds, we find the declaration of Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 to be constitutionally invalid by the learned Single Judge, to be wholly justified. 18. Now the question to be decided is whether it was appropriate for the learned Single Judge, even while taking cognizance of the supersession of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 with Office Memorandum dated 14.09.2017, replacing Compassionate Appointment with Compassionate Family Pension and also the passage of long number of years since the death of the deceased employees in all the writ petitions, is justified ? 19. The new Policy of the State vide Office Memorandum dated 14.09.2017 replacing Compassionate Appointment with Compassionate Family Pension Scheme would be applicable from a cut-off date in the year 2017, which is not applicable in cases of the respondents. The Policy of the State, which was prevalent at the time of death of the employees, would only be applicable to the respondents and in that case, there would be some justification for sustaining the relegating order by the learned Single Judge, notwithstanding the passage of more than 10(ten) years since the deaths. 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 Page No.# 9/10 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. 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.” 9. Accordingly, the Division Bench having upheld the relegation of the cases of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 1646/2021 and other analogous matters by the learned Single Judge, vide judgment & order dated 30.01.2023 to the respective committees for reconsideration of their cases. The case of the petitioner, herein, being found to be covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court passed in WA No. 287/2023, this Court directs the State Level Committee for appointment on compassionate grounds, to reconsider the case of the petitioner on its own merit. 10. For the purpose of such reconsideration, the decision of the State Level Committee, as arrived at in its meeting held on 13.09.2022, in respect of the petitioner, herein, stand interfered with. The State Level Committee while considering the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds shall make such consideration by examining as to whether the jurisdictional District Level Committee could have made its recommendation in favour of the petitioner by only projecting that the same was against a particular year without indentifying any vacant post for the purpose and also by reckoning the observations and directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment & order dated 12.12.2025 in WA No. 287/2023. The said exercise shall be carried out by the State Level Committee within a Page No.# 10/10 period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant