Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010159332024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4038/2024 MOHIBUL HOQUE SON OF LATE ABDUL KARIM, RESIDENT OF VILL- SHIBER ALGA, P.O. PADMER ALGA, P.S. FAKIRGANJ, DISTRICT- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783349 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (ELEMENTARY), DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DHUBRI PIN- 783301 4:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER GAURIPUR DISTRICT- DHUBRI PIN- 783331 5:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT TO BE REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN-CUM-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHUBRI. DHUBRI-78330 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER, MR E HUSSAIN,MR. A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, ELEM. EDU Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 18.02.2026 Heard Mr. L. R. Mazumder, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Chutia, Elementary Education Department, appearing for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present proceeding has raised a grievance with regard to non consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground, although he had submitted his application for the purpose. 3. The father of the petitioner while working as an Assistant Teacher at Poyesti Siberalga L.P. School died in harness on 28.12.2013. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was a minor and was aged about 14 (fourteen) years. Although the date on which the petitioner had submitted his application for being considered on compassionate ground is not set out, the projection made in the writ petition reveals that on attaining the age of majority the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground in the appropriate format before the respondent no.4 and the same is forwarded to the respondent no.3 on 28.05.2024. Accordingly, it is to be construed that the said application was made by the petitioner proximate to 28.05.2024. It is seen that the father of the petitioner had died on 28.12.2013 and if the petitioner at the relevant point of time was of 14(fourteen) years, he had attained age of majority Page No.# 3/5 some time in the year 2017or 2018 as the case may be. There is no material brought on record to reveal as to when the petitioner had pursued his claim for appointment on compassionate ground after attaining his majority in the year 2018. Further there is no disclosure made in the writ petition as to why the application claiming appointment on compassionate ground was not submitted by the petitioner till a date proximate to 28.05.2024. It is further not the contention of the petitioner that although he had submitted his application much earlier, the same was only forwarded on 28.05.2024 by the respondent no.4 to the respondent no.3. 4. The above narration of facts as found in the writ petition would reveal that neither the petitioner nor his family members were pursuing the claim for appointment on compassionate ground to any member of the family after the death of the father of the petitioner occasioned on 28.12.2013, diligently. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. It is to be noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the facts noticed, hereinabove. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also not clarified with regard to the date on which the petitioner had submitted his application for appointment on compassionate ground. 7. The father of the petitioner having died in harness on 28.12.2013, no application is found to have been made by any member of the petitioner’s family proximate to the time the father of the petitioner had died, for consideration of the case of such member of the family for appointment on compassionate ground. The Page No.# 4/5 petitioner is also not found to have pursued his claim immediately after attaining the age of majority which had occasioned some time in the year 2017 or 2018. 8. In view of the above factual matrix obtaining in the case , this Court is of the considered view that the sense of immediacy in the matter of compassionate appointment in respect of the petitioner has been lost. Such delay is clearly attributable to the petitioner, and also to his family members. 9. This Court after lapse of around 12 (twelve) years from the date of death of the father of the petitioner in harness , would not be in a position to issue direction upon the respondent authorities for consideration of the case of the petitioner, herein. The principle behind extension of appointments on compassionate ground is to enable the family member of the deceased Government employees to get over the sudden financial crisis falling upon the family due to the untimely death of the bread-earner of the family. Compassionate appointment cannot be treated to be a vested right which can be exercised by the heir of the deceased Government employee at any time in future and accordingly compassionate appointment is not called to be claimed or offered after a lapse of considerable period of time since the date of death of the employee and after the crisis is over. 10. In the present proceedings the petitioner and his family members is found to be guilty of laches in presenting a claim for appointment on compassionate ground to either the petitioner and/or any of his family members eligible at the time proximate to the death of the father of the petitioner.(Refer State of West Bengal Vs. Page No.# 5/5 Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712) 11. In view of the above discussion, the directions sought by the petitioner for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds, being so sought after lapse of around 12 (twelve) years from the date of death of the father of the petitioner, the immediacy in the matter of compassionate appointment in respect of the petitioner and/or any of his family members having being lost, and the delay so occasioning being clearly attributable to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that it is a not a fit case to direct the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions and conclusions reached hereinabove by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the issue involved in the present proceeding being a stale issue, it would not be permissible for this Court to issue any direction requiring consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in pursuance to death of the father of the petitioner in harness, occasioning in the year 2013. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant