Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010163732018 2025:GAU-AS:9198 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5100/2018 NIRMALYA SEN S/O- LATE NIRANJAN SEN, R/O- VILL- AND P.O- GANGAPUR, P.S- KATIGORA, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, JUDICIAL DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE REGISTRAR(ADMN) CUM I/C CENTRALISED RECRUITMENT GAUHATI HIGH COURT GHY- 01 3:THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CACHAR SILCHAR P.O- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 78880 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Upadhay, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H.K. Das, Standing Counsel Page No.# 2/7 Date of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date of Judgment : 17.07.2025 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. S. Upadhay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. H.K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the non-consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate basis in terms with the Notification dated 03.01.2017 issued by the Gauhati High Court on the Administrative side. 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that his father who was working as a Peon in the Establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar expired while in service on 16.04.1976. At that time, the petitioner’s age was 1 year 11 months 15 days. It is the case of the petitioner that the mother of the petitioner on various occasions met the Appointing Authority, but the said requests were not considered. It is under such circumstances, on 17.04.2017 the petitioner submitted a representation to the District and Sessions Page No.# 3/7 Judge, Silchar, Cachar which was not considered and it is under such circumstances, the present petition has been filed. 4. It is relevant to take note of that when the petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 2018, his age was 42 years. After the death of the father of the petitioner, when the petitioner was just a 1 year old child, the petitioner survived and presently as stated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner continues to aspire for a job in the Establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar. 5. This Court made a specific query upon the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as to how, the petitioner is managing his livelihood inasmuch as, as on date, the petitioner is almost 50 years. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner manages his livelihood by way of tuition. 7. The record reveals that in spite of notices being issued, the Gauhati High Court as well as the District and Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar who are the respondents to the present proceedings have not cared to file any affidavit-in-opposition. 8. The question therefore arises, as to whether, this Court presently would be in a position to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus for Page No.# 4/7 consideration of the petitioner’s case for the purpose of appointment on compassionate basis. 9. For that purpose, this Court finds it relevant to take note of a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Others reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 219 wherein the Supreme Court culled out the principles for making compassionate appointment. Paragraph Nos. 32 to 34 of the said judgment, being relevant, are reproduced herein under: “32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge: i. 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. ii. 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 are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be Page No.# 5/7 exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. iv. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. v. 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. 33. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a bread-winner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration. Page No.# 6/7 34. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependants of the deceased employee being employed on compassionate grounds. The financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the time of the death of the deceased, is the primary consideration that ought to guide the authorities’ decision in the matter.” 10. The law declared by the Supreme Court in the above judgment makes it clear that an appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment and the reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the Public Sector undertaking, is to see that the dependence of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It was further categorically observed that the appointment on compassionate basis are made in order to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis which have resulted on account of the death of the sole bread earner. 11. In the instant case, it would be seen that the petitioner survived for almost 50 years after the death of his father. He has a source of livelihood. Under such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the issuance of any directions for consideration of the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms with the scheme of 03.01.2017 does not arise. 12. This Court, therefore does not find the present case, a fit case, Page No.# 7/7 for entertaining the claim for compassionate appointment, for which, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 13. However, in the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to impose any cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant