Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010208882025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5444/2025 BAHARUL ISLAM BARBHUIYA S/O- LATE ABDUL LATIF BARBHUIYA, VILLAGE- RAJYESWARPUR PART-II, P.O-LALAMUKH P.S- LALA DIST- HALAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN-788163 VERSUS THE DIRECTOR OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMSSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE(DLC) HAILAKANDI P.O.AND DISTRICT-HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788151. 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER (DEEO) P.O.AND DISTRICTHAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788151. 4:THE DIRECTOR OF ASSAM ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 781019 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS HAILAKANDI Page No.# 2/10 P.O.AND DISTRICT-HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788151 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A H ALAMGIR, MR. K MIRA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 27.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. K Mira, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.N Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Department of Elementary Education, Govt. of Assam appearing for respondent No. 1, 2, 4 & 5 and Mr. T.C Chutia, learned Addl. Senior Government advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present writ petition, has presented a challenge to an Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 issued by the Govt. of Assam by the Personal (B) Department, inter alia, directing the administrative departments not to place claim applications for appointment on compassionate grounds before the Constituted State Level Committee and the jurisdictional District Level Committees for consideration. 3. The father of the petitioner, while working as Assistant Teacher in Rajyeswarpur Girls M.V School and died in harness on 25.03.2001. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was a minor and as projected in the Writ Petition, he was aged about 15 years. The petitioner applied on 23.10.2017 for appointment on compassionate grounds. The said application of the petitioner was placed before the jurisdictional District Level Page No.# 3/10 Committee and the jurisdictional District Level Committee, on consideration of the said application, rejected the same on the ground of late submission of the application. The said rejection was communicated to the petitioner vide an order dated 11.10.2021. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, after lapse of around 4 years since the rejection of his claim by the jurisdictional District Level Committee, has instituted the present proceedings. 4. Mr. K Mira, learned counsel for the petitioner, after reiterating the facts noticed hereinabove, has submitted that the family of the petitioner continues to be in penury and accordingly, although a delay has occasioned in the matter, the petitioner’s family, still being in need of an appointment on compassionate ground for sustaining themselves, the claim of the petitioner is required to be directed to be considered on its merits. 5. Mr. K Mira, learned counsel for the petitioner, on a query made by this Court, has submitted that there is no explanation provided in the Writ Petition as to why the petitioner had not applied for consideration of his case on compassionate grounds immediately after attaining the age of majority and had waited about 13 long years, thereafter, for submission of his application. 6. Mr. P.N Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Department of Elementary Education, Govt. of Assam as well as Mr. T.C Chutia, learned Addl. Senior Government advocate appearing for the respondents have univocally submitted that no direction is called for to be issued for consideration of the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds considering the long delay occasioning in the matter. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the father of the petitioner having died in harness on 25.03.2001, as on date the immediacy required to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds is lost in respect of the claim made by Page No.# 4/10 the petitioner and the claim is rendered to be a stale one. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Debabrat Tiwari & Ors. reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record. 9. The father of the petitioner had died in harness on 25.03.2001 and as projected in the Writ Petition, the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was aged about 15 years. The petitioner, admittedly attained the age of majority in the year 2004, however, it is seen that no application is found to have been submitted by the petitioner for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. Such application was submitted after 17 years from the date of death of the father of the petitioner in harness i.e. on 23.10.2017. The said application is also found to have been so submitted after 13 years with effect from the date when the petitioner had attained majority. No explanation has been set out in the Writ Petition towards explaining the delay occasioning in submission of the application by the petitioner for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The application of the petitioner was placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee and the said committee, on consideration of the same, was pleased to reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground of late submission of his application. The said decision was communicated to the petitioner by the Chairman, District Level Committee, Hailakandi vide an order dated 11.10.2021. It is found that the present Writ Petition was filed only after lapse of around 4 years since the issuance of the order dated 11.10.2021. Page No.# 5/10 10. It being now an admitted position emanating from the records of the matter, that the application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds was filed by the petitioner only on 23.10.2017 and there being no explanation brought on record for non-submission of such application proximate atleast to the time the petitioner had attained the age of majority, this Court is of the considered view that the decision of the jurisdictional District Level Committee, as contained in the order dated 11.10.2021, to be not erroneous. 11. It being a settled position of law that appointment on compassionate grounds is required to be so effected proximate to the time of death of the Government servant, the long delay occasioning in the petitioner applying for such appointment, defeats the very purpose for effecting appointments on compassionate grounds. Further, the claim for appointment is also not permissible to be so made on a future date as per the convenience of the claimant. 12. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court would now consider the challenge presented by the petitioner to the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024. The said challenge was considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 342 of 2025 (Abdul Qadir Bakshi v. State of Assam & Ors.) “This Court has perused the order dated 03-04-2025 and finds that in the said cases challenge was to the OM dated 18-09-2024. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, appreciating the concession made by the Government before it to the effect that all cases pending before the Court challenging the impugned OM dated 18-09-2024 shall be considered by the concerned authorities on merit, proceeded to pass the following directions: "9. In view of the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, all the writ petitions that are pending as on today, i.e., Page No.# 6/10 03.04.2025, in the Gauhati High Court, which have put to challenge the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024, are to be decided as follows:- (i) All the applications for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioners shall be considered and disposed of by the concerned DLC/SLC on merit, by taking into consideration the various guidelines prior to 01.04.2017, laid down by the State Government for compassionate appointment and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court. Consequently, the rejection of all compassionate appointments by the DLC/SLC, which have been put to challenge and are pending in the Gauhati High Court as on 03.04.2025, are set aside. (ii) The entire process for considering the various applications for compassionate appointment and the decision to be taken in each case by the concerned authorities, should be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the concerned District Commissioner, who is also the Chairman of the DLC, if the matter pertains to the DLC. In other cases, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, who is the Chairman of the SLC, if the matter pertains the SLC." A perusal of the direction passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03-04-2025 would reveal that the same is limited only to the writ petitions pending before this Court wherein the challenge is to the OM dated 18-09-2024.” 13. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition not being one pending as on 03.04.2025, the directions passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Qadir Bakshi v. State of Assam & Ors. would not stand attracted. 14. At this stage, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Debabrata Tiwari (Supra) is required to be noticed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision had drawn the following conclusions:- "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 Page No.# 7/10 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 dependents 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 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 dependents 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 dependents of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a breadwinner, 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. 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 mpassionate ends meet without one of the dependents of the Page No.# 8/10 deceased employee being employe two 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. 35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee. 36. Laches or undue delay, the blame-worthy conduct of a person in approaching a Court of Equity in England for obtaining discretionary relief which disentitled him for grant of such relief was explained succinctly by Sir Barnes Peacock, in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong, [1874] 3 P.C. 221 as under: "Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation, in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute or limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of Justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy." Page No.# 9/10 37. Whether the above doctrine of laches which disentitled grant of relief to a party by Equity Court of England, could disentitle the grant of relief to a person by the High Court in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of our Constitution, came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M. R. Meher, President, Industrial Court, Bombay, AIR 1967 SC 1450. In the said case, it was regarded as a principle that disentitled a party for grant of relief from a High Court in the exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 38. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 this Court restated the principle articulated in earlier pronouncements in the following words: “9.... the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this Rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring. in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction." 39. While we are mindful of the fact that there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, ordinarily, a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time, vide Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538; NDMC v. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278. 40. Further, simply because the Respondents-Writ Petitioners submitted their applications to the relevant authority in the year 2005-2006, it cannot be said that they diligently perused the matter and had not slept over their rights. In this regard, it may be apposite to refer to the decision of this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, wherein the following observations were made: "19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time." Page No.# 10/10 12. Applying the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (Supra) to the facts of the present case, it is seen that the father of the petitioner had died in harness on 25.03.2001. The consideration that is now sought to be made in respect of the petitioner herein, for appointment on compassionate grounds is a consideration so required to be made after a lapse of around 25 years. The sense of immediacy in the matter of compassionate appointment in respect of the petitioner has been lost. Such delay is attributable to the petitioner and accordingly, entertaining the claim at this point of time would be of no avail, because, admittedly, the petitioner has been able to eke out a living even though he was not favored with an appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case to direct the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. 13. In view of the foregoing discussions and conclusions reached herein above by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the issue involved in the present proceeding being a stale issue, it would not be permissible for this Court to issue any direction requiring consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in pursuance to death of his father, in harness, occasioning in the year 2001. 14. In terms of the above discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same accordingly stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant