Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010204422024 2025:GAU-AS:16257 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5293/2024 NANDITA DAS WIFE OF RANU CHANDRA DAS, VILLAGE- CHANRAPUR PT-1, P.O.- LALA, DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM 788163. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS IS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FOOD, PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE STATE LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE (SIU) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 4:THE COMMISSIONER FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY GUWAHATI- 781007. 5:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ. 6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ ASSAM. Page No.# 2/8 7:THE DIRECTOR FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI 781005. 8:THE TREASURY OFFICER KARIMGANJ ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M DUTTA, L DEKA,MS S DEV Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE DEPTT.,SC, F C I BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 28.11.2025 Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 8. 2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner’s husband died in harness on 05.02.2015, while working as a Grade-IV employee in the office of the District Commissioner, Karimganj. The petitioner thereafter applied for compassionate appointment and in the meeting minutes of the District Level Committee dated 30.12.2015, the petitioner was recommended for compassionate appointment. The State Level Committee, headed by the Chief Secretary, thereafter approved the petitioner for compassionate appointment, vide its meeting minutes dated 01.03.2024. 3. The extract of the meeting minutes of the SLC dated 01.03.2024 states as follows:- Page No.# 3/8 “Shri Paban Kumar Borthakur, IAS, Chief Secretary, Government of Assam, chaired the State Level Committee (SLC) meeting for appointment on compassionate ground in Grade-IV posts available under Food. Public Distribution & Consumer Affairs Department for this purpose. The Chairman welcomed the Members of the Committee and requested the Member-Secretary to initiate the discussion as per the Agenda. The Member Secretary apprised the Committee about 01 (one) pending case for appointment on compassionate ground under FPD&CA Department in respect of Smti. Nandita Das W Late Ranu Ch. Das. Ex-Peon. FPD&CA. Karimganj, recommended by the District Level Committee Karimganj for appointment on compassionate ground in Grade-IV (peon) post. The Committee, being satisfied with the proposal, approved the applicant Smti. Nandita Das for her appointment on compassionate ground in the post of Peon (Grade-IV) available in the 11-the District Commissioner, Karimganj. The meeting ended with vote of thanks to the Chair.” 4. The State respondents not having issued any appointment order to the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. The respondents’ counsels submit that in terms of the communication No. ECF-581111/162 dated 20.11.2024, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Food & Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department, the petitioner’s prayer for compassionate appointment would be disposed of in line with the SOP issued by the Personnel Department and subject to receipt of concurrence from the Finance Department. The respondents have submitted Executive order No. ABP.107/2024/Pt/102 dated 30.08.2025, issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel Department, which provides that the scheme for compassionate appointment has already been superseded by the compassionate family pension w.e.f. 01.04.2017 and in consonance with the judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari, reported in (2023) Page No.# 4/8 SCC Online SC 219. As such, while considering and disposing the case of compassionate appointment, the respondents would have to consider the same in terms of the parameters/criterion provided in the Executive order dated 30.08.2025, which are as follows:- “4. Parameters/Criteria to look into while considering and disposing the case of Compassionate Appointment: While deciding the case for compassionate appointment, the Competent Authority shall take a decision based on guidelines of the State Government and judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, as mentioned above and also based on the following criteris and parameters on the basis of which each individual case to be dealt with: (1) The criteria of "immediacy" in determining the claims for compassionate appointment to fulfill the object-being to enable the family of the deceased employee to get over the immediate financial crisis which it faces at the time of death of the sole breadwinner of the family. (1) Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered after lapse of considerable amount of time and after crisis is over and specifically directed by Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das-Vs-SOA & Ors reported in 2006(4) GLT 674, that the applications of eligible candidates which remains pending and cannot be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of two years from the date of making such applications, all such applications will require no further consideration and must be understood to spent their force. (m) The Compassionate Appointment being not a right, rather it is a welfare measure for the State Government to the family of the deceased employees for its inmediate succor, the conditions set for granting the benefit of such measure, being exception to the general rules for recruitment, has to be strictly adhered to.” 6. The counsels for the respondents further submit that in a similar matter, i.e., Mantu Bayan vs. the State of Assam and 5 others (WP(C) 352/2025), this Court, vide order dated 17.11.2025, had dismissed the prayer of the petitioner therein for compassionate appointment, by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra). The father of the petitioner therein had expired on 18.03.2006. Page No.# 5/8 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 8. In the case of Mantu Bayan vs. the State of Assam and 5 others (WP(C) 352/2025), the petitioner’s father therein died in harness on 18.03.2006 and his prayer for compassionate appointment had been approved by the concerned DLC. The SLC rejected the prayer for compassionate appointment in its meeting minutes dated 27.11.2020, on the ground that there was no vacant post available for compassionate appointment within the 5% quota reserved for compassionate appointment. 9. Being aggrieved, the petitioner therein instituted WP(C) 281/2021 and this Court, vide order dated 23.06.2022, disposed of the same by interfering with the SLC rejection order and directing the SLC to reconsider the case of the petitioner therein. The SLC thereafter, in its meeting held on 02.03.2023, then found the petitioner eligible to be appointed on compassionate ground and recommended his appointment against a Grade-IV post available in any other Departments other than the Department in which the petitioner had applied for, in terms of Clause 15 of the OM dated 01.06.2015. 10. The same not being done, the petitioner therein filed WP(C) 352/2025, which was rejected by this Court, in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra). It was held in WP(C) 352/2025 that the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment had lost its significance due to efflux of time. As such, compassionate appointment could not be given. Page No.# 6/8 11. In the present case, the petitioner had always been approved for compassionate appointment, against a definite vacant post, which has also been reflected in the meeting minutes of the SLC, headed by the Chief Secretary. Thus, there is a difference in facts between WP(C) 352/2025 and in the present case. Further, Para 3 of the letter dated 16.03.2023 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj to the Secretary to the Government of Assam FCS & CA Department states as follows:- “Yes, the proposed post (Grade-IV) for appointment on compassionate ground recommended by the DLC on 23/12/2015 is still vacant.” The above proves that the vacancy to which the petitioner is to be appointed still exist. 12. The issue to be decided in the present case is as to whether the communication dated 20.11.2025, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs and the Executive order dated 30.08.2025 would be applicable to the case of the petitioner, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already been considered for compassionate appointment and approved for the same against the existing vacancy in terms of the scheme for compassionate appointment, which was prevalent at the time of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment. 13. In the case of N.C. Santosh Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617, the Apex Court has held that the law governing Page No.# 7/8 compassionate appointment on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for considering the application. However, in Civil Appeal No. 6903 & 6904 of 2021, the Apex Court has relied and acted upon the earlier judgments of the Apex Court in Indian Bank & Others vs. Promila & Another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729 and State of Madhya Pradesh & Others vs. Amit Shrivas, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 496 wherein, it was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee is the only scheme to be considered while deciding an application for compassionate appointment. In the present case, both the options provided by the Supreme Court have been fulfilled and as such, no third option, which is not in line with the decisions of the Supreme Court, can be applied to the case of the petitioner. 14. In view of the reasons stated above, there can be no application of the communication dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs or the Executive Order dated 30.08.2025 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel Department to the case of the petitioner, especially when the State Level Committee headed by the Chief Secretary has already approved appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground against an existing vacant post. The case of the petitioner herein having been considered in terms of the decisions mentioned above and as the only remaining requirement was issuance of an appointment order, this Court is of the view that the State respondents should do the needful in terms of the recommendations made by the DLC and SLC. 15. The State respondents are accordingly directed to send the case of the Page No.# 8/8 petitioner for compassionate appointment, for approval of the SIU, Finance Department and thereafter, pass necessary orders. The entire exercise should be concluded within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant