Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010194472023 2025:GAU-AS:15454 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5076/2023 BHASKAR GOGOI SON OF LATE TARUN GOGOI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DARAKAIL GAON, P.O. NAKACHARI, P.S. MARIANI, DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM AND CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (W AND S) ASSAM GUWAHATI ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIMA HASAO DISTRICT HAFLONG AND CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DIMA HASAO HAFLONG 5:THE COMMANDANT 5TH APBN SONTILLA DIMA HASAO DISTRIC Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A SARMA, MR J P CHAUHAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/7 :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 14.11.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes Judgment & Order(Oral) Heard Mr. A. Sarma, leaned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the rejection of his application for appointment on compassionate ground by the State Level Committee (SLC) vide Minutes of Meeting dated 02.03.2023. 3. The case of the petitioner is that his father, late Tarun Gogoi, had died in harness on 19.07.2005, while serving in the Office of the Commandant, 5th A.P. Battalion, Sontilla, Dima Hasao District, Assam. At Page No.# 3/7 the time of his father’s death, the petitioner was only 9 (nine) years old. Upon attaining the age of majority, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 30.11.2015. 4. When the petitioner’s grievance for appointment on compassionate ground was not considered by the District Level Committee (DLC), he approached this Court by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No. 3609/2022. The DLC, instead of considering the matter for recommendation, referred it to the State Level Committee (SLC) for a decision. This Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the DLC to reconsider the matter. Accordingly, the DLC, vide Minutes of Meeting dated 08.07.2022, recommended the petitioner’s name to the State Level Committee. The State Level Committee, however, vide its Minutes of Meeting dated 02.03.2023, rejected the petitioner’s case on the ground of late submission of the application. 5. Challenging the said rejection, Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that at the time of the death of the father of the petitioner, he was a minor. Upon attaining majority in the year 2015, the petitioner submitted his application, as he and his family were facing acute financial hardship following the demise of his father. He submits that the rejection of his application on the ground of late submission is unreasonable, inasmuch as the petitioner could not have applied for compassionate appointment while he was a minor. After attaining majority, the petitioner submitted his application as the family was in a state of destitution. Therefore, he contends that the rejection by the SLC is unsustainable, and prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to Page No.# 4/7 consider the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 6. While placing reliance on the order of this Court in the case of Saleh Ahmed Mazumder vs the State of Assam & 4 Ors., passed in WP(C) No. 229/2022, Mr. Sarma, learned counsel submits that the norms prevailing at the time of consideration of the application should be considered relevant, as the petitioner submitted his application in the year 2015, and the consideration was made in the year 2022. He has also referred to another order of this Court in the case of Rajesh Nath vs. The State of Assam & 8 Ors., passed in WP(C)3290/2020, to submit that at the time of the death of the petitioner’s father, he was a minor, but immediately upon attaining majority, the petitioner submitted his application for compassionate appointment. 7. Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents, submits that the petitioner’s father died in the year 2005, whereas the petitioner submitted his application for compassionate appointment only in the year 2015, after a lapse of nearly 10 (ten) years. He submits that the very purpose of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the immediate financial hardship of the deceased employee’s family. Therefore, submission of application of the petitioner is hopelessly delayed and an application of this nature cannot be considered favourably after nearly 10 (ten) years from the demise of the Government employee. 8. Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned State counsel has also relied in the case of Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihhar, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192 to project that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death Page No.# 5/7 of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 10. The petitioner’s father had died on 19.07.2005, while serving in the Office of the Commandant, 5th A.P. Battalion, Sontilla, Dima Hasao District, Assam. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted his application for appointment on compassionate ground on 30.11.2015, after a lapse of nearly 10 (ten) years. It appears that the petitioner submitted his application upon attaining the age of majority in the year 2015. While a minor could not apply for compassionate appointment, there is equally no provision or condition in the relevant scheme allowing a minor to submit an application upon attaining majority, especially after several years from the date of death of the Government employee. 11. It is a settled position that appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the immediate financial hardship of the deceased employee’s family. Therefore, the application of such nature cannot be considered favorably after the lapse of several years since the demise of the Government employee, as the same would defeat the very purpose of the scheme of compassionate appointment. 12. In the case of State of Manipur vs. Md. Rajaodin, reported in 2003 (7) SCC 511, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue. The observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is reproduced herienbelow: Page No.# 6/7 “…11. In Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. [1989 (4) SCC 468] it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above view was reiterated in Phoolwati (Smt.) Vs. Union of India & Ors. [1991 Supp. (2) SCC 689] and Union of India and Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Singh [1995 (6) SCC 476]. In Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. Vs. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors. [1998 (5) SCC 192] it was observed that in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependent of the deceased employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the general provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an exception and thererby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision.” 13. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the policy/scheme for compassionate appointment by the Government does not permit a minor to submit a belated application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds upon attaining majority. The policy/scheme stipulates that such an application should be filed in a time-bound manner by an eligible dependent family member and be considered as expeditiously as possible. 14. As noted above, it is undisputed that the petitioner was a minor at the time of his father’s death and filed his application for compassionate appointment in the year 2015, after lapse of nearly 10 (ten) years, upon attaining the age of majority. Since there is no provision under the Government’s scheme/policy allowing a minor to seek compassionate Page No.# 7/7 appointment upon attaining the age of majority, especially after several years have passed, I am of the considered view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner’s grievance for compassionate appointment on the ground of late submission of the application by the petitioner cannot be found fault with. 15. The orders of this Court, relied upon by Mr. Sarma, learned counsel, in the cases of Saleh Ahmed Mazumder (Supra) and Rajesh Nath (Supra), to project that an application can be filed for compassionate appointment after attaining the age of majority, appears to be misconceived, as the cases referred to above pertains to different facts which is not similar to the present case. 16. The other aspect which cannot be ignored is that the scheme/policy which the petitioner has relied on, i.e., the Government Circular dated 01.06.2015, has been done away with by the Government. In other words, the same is no longer in operation, and in its place, a new circular is stated to have been issued for appointment on compassionate grounds. 17. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I am of the considered view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. JUDGE Comparing Assistant