Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010117762025 2025:GAU-AS:17814 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3188/2025 BISHAL CHATTERJEE S/O LATE BIPLAB CHATTERJEE, VILL- PATHARKANDI, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, P.O. AND P.S.- PATHARKANDI, DIST- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT AND 5 ORS DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY REVENUE AND DM (REGISTRATION) DEPTT. GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR PIN-781006 3:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE CACHAR (FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SRIBHUMI P.O. P.S. AND DIST- SRIBHUMI ASSAM 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SRIBHUMI DISTRICT P.O. Page No.# 2/7 P.S. AND DIST- SRIBHUMI ASSAM 6:THE SUB-REGISTRAR SRIBHUMI DISTRICT ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA, MS A BEGUM,MS S R MAZARBHUIYA,MR. JUNM LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 16-12-2025 Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 – 6; and Mr. J. Handique, learned standing counsel for the Revenue Department, being respondent No. 2. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Office Memorandum (OM hereinafter) dated 18.09.2024, issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Personnel Department and prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to place his matter before the State Level Committee (SLC hereinafter) for being appointed him on compassionate ground. 3. Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, namely, Biplab Chatterjee, was working as Extra Writer, in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Sribhumi (erstwhile Karimganj) and he died in harness on 14.02.1999. Page No.# 3/7 3.1. Mr. Barbhuiya further submits that at that time, as the petitioner was minor, initially his mother had applied for being appointed on compassionate ground and accordingly, in the meeting of District Level Committee (DLC hereinafter), held on 20.01.2007, her name was recommended for compassionate appointment to a Grade – III post. But, despite such recommendation of the DLC, her case was not placed before the SLC for approval and in the mean time, the petitioner became major and therefore, he had applied for being appointed on compassionate ground to replace his mother, with her consent. Accordingly, the DLC, in its meeting held on 31.07.2023, had recommended the name of petitioner for compassionate appointment to a Grade – IV post and at the same time, it was clarified that if vacant post is not available in the parent office of the Sub-Registrar, Karimganj, then his claim should be considered as per Clause – 15, in any other department, preferably in the Revenue and Disaster Management (Registration) Department. Accordingly, the Sub-Registrar, Karimganj, was requested to take immediate steps for obtaining the approval from the Government. 3.2. Further submission of Mr. Barbhuiya is that in pursuance to a judgment and order, dated 03.03.2023, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others, in Civil Appeal Nos. 8842 – 8855 of 2022, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Personnel Department had issued the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024, abolishing the scheme of compassionate appointment in the state of Assam. 3.3. Mr. Barbhuiya also submits that now the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the said impugned OM, dated 18.09.2024, on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not contemplate and/or direct to issue this Page No.# 4/7 kind of OM, by abolishing the scheme of compassionate appointment. 3.4. It is also the submission of Mr. Barbhuiya that the respondent authorities could not issue the aforesaid OM at this belated stage with retrospective effect, by creating an unreasonable classification among the beneficiaries of earlier OM dated 14.09.2017, issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Finance Department. 3.5. Mr. Barbhuiya further submits that as per the OM dated 14.09.2017, some persons of petitioner's category have already been appointed on compassionate ground. But, now, the petitioner is being denied for compassionate appointment by issuing the impugned OM, dated 18.09.2024. 3.6. Referring to a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P.(C) No. 2070/2025, dated 30.04.2025, Mr. Barbhiya submits that the present petitioner is similarly situated with the petitioner therein, and as such, similar order may be passed by allowing this petition. 4. Per-contra, Ms. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate submits that this writ petition may be disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioner before the next SLC meeting as recommended by the DLC on 31.07.2023. 5. In reply, Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection in the event of directing the SLC to consider the case of the petitioner as recommended by the DLC on 31.07.2023. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also gone through the order dated 30.04.2025, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P.(C) No. 2070/2025. Page No.# 5/7 7. It is also to be noted here that the said OM, dated 18.09.2024, was put to challenge in W.P.(C) No. 342/2025 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 03.04.2025 and a batch of similar writ petitions were also disposed of, with 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., 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. Page No.# 6/7 10. It is made clear that in view of the consent of the parties, this Court has not gone into the merits of any of the petitioners’ cases that are being disposed of by way of this order and as such, the applications for compassionate appointment should be disposed of by the concerned authorities on merit, as they deem it fit and proper. The decision/s to be taken by the concerned authorities should be based on reasons and the decision taken should be communicated to the petitioners thereafter. It is also directed that while deciding the applications for compassionate appointment, the respondents cannot take recourse to the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024, though the judgment provided therein, i.e., the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), can be considered/applied by the concerned authorities. It is again made clear that this order cannot be used as a precedent for cases that are filed on 04.04.2025 and thereafter. It shall only apply to cases that are pending before this Court as on 03.04.2025.” 8. Though the present writ petition is filed after 03.04.2025, yet, the direction issued in the order dated 03.04.2025, would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the DLC has already approved the case of the petitioner and to take his case to a logical conclusion, now, the same has to be placed before the SLC. 9. Thus, taking note of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and also the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioner before the next available SLC, and in the event of placing the matter of the petitioner before the SLC, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Page No.# 7/7 10. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant