Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010275952024 2025:GAU-AS:651-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/95/2025 BASANTI CHOUDHURY W/O- LT. PAWAN CHOUDHURY, R/O- AMSING JORABAT SHANTI BASTI, P.O. and P.S.- SATGAON, DIST.- KAMRUP M, ASSAM, PIN- 781027. -VERSUS- 1.THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, ARMY HEAD QUARTER, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110011. 2:THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF INTEGRATED HEADQUARTER MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ARMY NEW DELHI- 110011. 3:CHIEF ENGINEER HEADQUARTER EASTERN COMMAND FORTE WILLIAM KOLKATA- 21. 4:CHIEF ENGINEER HEAD QUARTER SHILLONG ZONE SPREAD EAGLE FALLS SHILLONG- 11. 5:COMMANDER WORKS ENGINEER HEAD QUARTER SHILLONG ZONE SPREAD EAGLE FALLS SHILLONG- 11. 6:GARRISON ENGINEER MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICE NARANGI C/O- 99 APO PIN- 900328 Page No.# 2/4 Linked Case : WA No.15665/2024 (Filing Number) BASANTI CHOUDHURY VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS For the Applicant(s) : Mr. N. Sarma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Borthakur, Advocate. – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI 22.01.2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ) The matter comes upon for consideration of the instant Interlocutory Application, i.e. I.A.(Civil) No.95/2025, preferred on behalf of the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 with a prayer to condone the delay of 224 days occasioned in preferring the connected writ appeal assailing the judgment and order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3764/2014. 2. WP(C) No.3674/2014 was preferred by the applicant before the learned Single Judge raising a grievance that her case for appointment on compassionate ground, after the death of her husband, who died in harness, has wrongly been rejected by the respondent Department. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 08.04.2024. 3. Against the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the applicant has preferred the connected writ appeal, which is yet to be registered. 4. It is to be noticed that the husband of the applicant, who was a Government employee, while working as a regular Mazdoor in the establishment of Garison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, Narengi, died in harness on 12.01.2004. The Page No.# 3/4 applicant submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground in the month of August, 2004 but the respondents have not considered her request. 5. The case of the applicant is that she had approached the respondents on regular intervals but unfortunately, in year 2014, she was served with a notice of the year 2007, precisely dated 08.08.2007, whereby her claim for granting compensation appointment was rejected. 6. Against the said communication dated 08.08.2007, the applicant preferred the captioned writ petition. 7. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival arguments and taking into consideration the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Hakim Singh, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 85, State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 219, has observed that applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) and Hakim Singh (supra), it is clear that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is related to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government servant as a consequence of his/her death. It is further observed that a claim for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be entertained after a lapse of considerable time since the death of the government servant, more so, when the family has been able to sustain itself during the long period after the death of the government servant. 8. The learned Single Judge has further observed that there is nothing on record to show that the applicant was diligently pursuing the matter with the authorities after 2004 and instituted the proceedings raising grievance with regard to the failure on the part of the authorities to consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground till the filing of the captioned writ petition. The learned Single Judge has further observed that the applicant and/or his family having not pursued the mater timely Page No.# 4/4 after the death of the Government employee, it is not a fit case to direct the respondent authorities to again consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and having gone through the material available in the connected writ appeal, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly not issued any direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground because there is all possibilities that the financial hardships which the applicant and his family have faced due to untimely death of the Government servant may have diluted at present. 10. If the applicant and her family who have been able to survive for more than two decades from the date of death of the Government servant, we are also of the view that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion of this court under its extra-ordinary jurisdiction. 11. In view of above discussion, the instant Interlocutory Application filed on behalf of the applicant for condoning the delay of 224 days occasioned in preferring the connected writ appeal as well as the connected writ appeal, which is yet to be registered, stand dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant