Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010205382025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5471/2025 SARASWATI PANDAY W/O- LATE MANOJ PANDEY, RESIDENT OF 10TH APBN FAMILY LINE, P.O- KAHILIPARA, P.S- DISPUR, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781006. 2:THE CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE CUM CHIEF SECRETARY ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI ASSAM 4:ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (W AND S) ASSAM POLICE HEAD QUARTERS ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781008. 5:THE COMMANDANT 10TH ASSAM POLICE BATTALION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 Page No.# 2/7 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GANGULY, MR. A DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 17.09.2025 Heard Mr. A Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has filed put into challenge an order of rejection of the prayer for compassionate appointment by the DLC passed on 26.09.2022. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the minutes of the meeting of the DLC held on 26.09.2022 submits that in so far as the writ petitioner is concerned, her case along with two others were rejected by the DLC on the ground that the candidates had not applied within one year from the date of death of the government servant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s name appears at Sl. No. 2 of the minutes and she did apply for compassionate appointment immediately after the death of her husband who died in harness on 22.11.2015. However, she did not retain copy of the application filed. Therefore, she made a second application which came to be rejected on 26.09.2022 on the ground that the application was made beyond one year from the date of the death of a government servant. 4. Mr. A Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the office memorandum dated 18.09.2024 issued by the Personnel Department whereby compassionate appointments have been done away with by the Government of Page No.# 3/7 Assam has not been put to challenge. Pursuant thereto an Executive Order dated 30.08.2025 read with a notice dated 30.08.2025 have also been issued by the department. All these cases relating to appointment on compassionate ground were required to be considered on the basis of the particulars filed in terms of the notice dated 30.08.2025. The last date for filing these particulars of persons aggrieved in terms of the executive order dated 30.08.2025, was on 15.09.2025 and which date has already expired. Under such circumstances, there is no merit in the petition and the same should be dismissed. 5. Having noted the submissions made before this Court, it is also apparent to the Court that the petitioner essentially in the present proceeding is putting a challenge to the rejection of her prayer for compassionate appointment by the minutes dated 26.09.2022 wherein it is seen that in so far as the writ petitioner is concerned, her case was rejected on the ground that the application for compassionate appointment was filed beyond one year after the death of the government servant. The case projected on behalf of the petitioner is that this finding by the DLC is incorrect as the petitioner had applied immediately upon the demise of her husband before the competent authority for compassionate appointment. The status of her case was never communicated to the writ petitioner. Therefore the findings of the DLC in its minutes dated 26.09.2022 that the petitioner had applied after expiry of one year is incorrect. This submission cannot be accepted in the absence of any specific averments made in the writ petition as to what steps the petitioner undertook to pursue the application stated to have been filed within one year immediately after the expiry of her late husband on 22.11.2015. There is no averment to that effect save and except the omnibus submissions that the petitioner had been pursuing her application. The copy of the application stated to have been filed by the Page No.# 4/7 petitioner seeking compassionate appointment pursuant to the demise of her husband. This is not disputed by the writ petitioner. It is therefore seen that the challenge made by the petitioner to the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the DLC is essentially on her claim that the finding arrived at by the DLC that she did not apply immediately after expiry of her husband is factually incorrect. However, such contentions on behalf of the writ petitioner are not supported by any documents or communications between the petitioner and the respondent. This is the primary ground on which the challenge is premised upon. Even otherwise the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the DLC is challenged after three (3) years for which also no adequate explanation is available. A writ Court would not invoke it’s jurisdiction where it is found that the claim of the writ petitioner is after considerable delay and laches which has not been adequately explained. There is also no averment as to how the petitioner survived for all these years after her husband’s demise. 6. In this context, it is relevant to refer to a Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Anusree K.B., reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1331. In this said Judgment the precedents laid down by the Apex Court on compassionate ground on the death of the deceased employee are referred to and considered. Again in the recent decision, the Apex Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka v. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 704, had occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground. After referring to the decision of the Apex Court in N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617, the Apex Court has summarised the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground as under:— (i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule; Page No.# 5/7 (ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment; (iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State's policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy; (v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. It was further held that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in catena of decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right. Thus, it was held by the Apex Court that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made under the Rules to provide for gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such Page No.# 6/7 employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. 7. Applying the ratio of the Judgment of the Apex Court to the facts of the case, it is seen that there is no “immediacy” as on date to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the absence of proper explanation by the petitioner. Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right as discussed. It is rather an exception to the normal rule of recruitment only to afford an opportunity to the family in distress to tide over the sudden misfortune which befell upon them due to the government servant dying in harness and in most cases where the said government servant is the sole bread earner. Therefore, to consider the claims of appointment on compassionate ground, the law laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 and followed in a catena of Judgments rendered by the Apex Court as also by this Court and the principle as expounded in the Judgments has been consistent. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot therefore be considered to be a matter of right but the same is to be considered on other attending facts and circumstances of each case independently and more particularly the urgency and the immediacy for the dependent members for being appointment on compassionate ground dehors the normal Rule which is applicable for fresh recruitments as prescribed. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition in the present form. Even otherwise the order of rejection of the second application which was issued on 26.09.2022 has been put to challenge in the year 2025. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The dismissal or rejection of the writ petition will however not Page No.# 7/7 be a bar to the petitioner to pursue her claims before the department in respect of the first application stated to have been submitted by the writ petitioner within one year pursuant to the death expiry of her late husband on 22.11.2015. 9. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant