Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010135132023 2025:GAU-AS:9515- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/264/2023 KRISHNA BHARALI S/O- LT. DINESWAR BHARALI, R/O VILL.- NO. 1 HARMOTI PHAKUA, P.O.- MADHAB PUR, P.S.- NARAYANPUR, DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. B REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM CUM CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE, DISPUR, GHY- 6. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSA EXCISE DEPTT. DISPUR GHY- 6. 3:THE UNDER SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EXCISE DEPTT. DISPUR GHY- 6. 4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN DIST. LEVEL COMMITTEE DLC DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 784164. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE CUM MEMBER SECY. DIST. LEVEL COMMITTEE DLC DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 784164 Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHETRY, MR B KAUSHIK,MR. S HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EXCISE DEPTT., GA, ASSAM(R 1&4) BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA 24/07/2025 Ashutosh Kumar, CJ 1. Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, for the respondents. 2. The appellant had claimed for compassionate appointment on the death of his father, who had died in harness while working as a Havildar in the Excise Department in the district of Lakhimpur. 3. Immediately after the death of his father, the appellant made an application seeking compassionate appointment through the Superintendent of Excise, Lakhimpur. He was recommended too and his name was placed before the State Level Committee (SLC), which did not do anything in the matter for another 3 (three) years. Vexed by this, the appellant had approached this Court for a direction to the SLC to consider the case of the appellant. But by that time, it was discerned that on 11/06/2014 only, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the SLC on the ground of there being no vacancy in the Department. 4. The appellant withdrew the writ petition but again challenged the decision of the SLC on the strength of an Office Memorandum, which mandated that in case of no vacancy, efforts should be made to explore the vacancy in other Departments so as to provide succour to the family of the deceased employee. 5. This writ petition was disposed off for reconsideration of the case of the appellant by the SLC against the existing vacancy in the post of Excise Constables, ear-marked for Page No.# 3/4 appointment on compassionate ground. 6. The case of the appellant was reconsidered but again rejected on the ground of non-availability of vacant post for the year 2014-15. 7. The learned Single Judge while dealing with this case, took note of the fact that from 2008 to 2012, there were only 6(six) number of posts reserved for compassionate appointment throughout the State of Assam, which had already been filled up. The directions issued by the Writ Court for considering the vacancy position as against the claim of the appellant could not have been sustained in any other manner except for finding out the vacancy position of the ear-marked posts for compassionate appointment. 8. That apart, the death had taken place in 2010. The appellant has now waited for about 15 (fifteen) years to seek appointment on compassionate ground. 9. It is too late in the day to reiterate the principle that compassionate appointments are, in a way, departure from the general provision providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. 10. It cannot be and is not a source of recruitment. 11. The scheme under which compassionate appointments are made have been framed to provide succour to the family of the deceased in distress. The concern of the employer is that the family should not be forced to the brink of starvation with the death of the earning member of the family which brings in its train severe financial crisis. 12. After having said that there is no gainsaying that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any appoint of time in future. 13. Speaking generally, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time when the crisis is over. All efforts but should be made to immediately redeem the family in distress. It is highly improper to keep any such case pending for years. 14. But in the present case, when 15 (fifteen) years have passed by since the death of the employee, it would be absolutely difficult for this Court to differ with the judgement of the Page No.# 4/4 learned Single Judge in rejecting such claim. 15. The whole difficulty appears to have arisen because of the delay made by the SLC in considering the case of the appellant. This has perhaps frustrated the very scheme of the compassionate appointment. 16. We are constrained to observe that such lackadaisical approach of the authorities has resulted in a suitable claim of a person for compassionate appointment go waste. Government officials must act with a sense of utmost pro-activeness and immediacy while deciding the claim of compassionate appointment so as to ensure that the wholesome object of such claim is fulfilled. 17. Coming back to the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant that the order passed by the Writ Court for exploring the vacancy position at the time of the appellant having made an application, we can only say that the vacancy position has to be seen in the context of ear-marked vacancy for compassionate appointment. Even if there is a vacancy in the Department but the ear-marked vacant positions are full, it would be very difficult to accede to the request of the claimant for the grant of compassionate appointment. 18. In any view of the matter, as noted above, since 15 (fifteen) years have now passed by, the hands of the clock cannot be turned back. 19. By this time, the appellant must have even crossed the age for appointment. 20. Though, with some regret, we dismiss the appeal and sustain the judgement of the learned Single Judge. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant