Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010038842024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1107/2024 DILIP BARUAH S/O LATE MAHENDRA SEAL, R/O VILL- BAKUAJANI, P.O.-BAKUAJANI, P.S.- TIHU, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781340 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, POWER (ELECTRICITY) DEPARTMENT, D-BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR-CUM-CHAIRMAN BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HQ) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 5:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (D) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (LAR) BIJULEE BHAWAN Page No.# 2/6 PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 6:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRH) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 7:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (PP AND D)/CEO/DGM/CSO RANGIA ELECTRICAL CIRCLE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED RANGIA KAMRUP ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SAHU, MR N BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 13-11-2025 Heard Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, APDCL. 2. The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner has also prayed for an interference with the reasons assigned for rejecting his claim for appointment on compassionate ground by the Constituted Committee of the respondents. 3 The father of the petitioner late Mahendra Seal, while working as SBO Gr.-II (TESD) in the establishment of the Assistant General Manager, Rangia Electrical Division, Page No.# 3/6 APDCL (LAR), Rangia, had died-in-harness on 12-05-2014. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application on 28-05-2014, staking his claim for appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent authorities had, thereafter, considered the case of the petitioner, herein, along with other similarly situated applicants, who had also applied for consideration of their respective cases for appointment on compassionate ground. The Constituted Committee on consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds basing on the parameters set out for such consideration, arrived at a conclusion that given the financial resources available with the family of the petitioner, he does not deserve to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding has assailed the said reasons assigned by the Constituted Committee, in addition to praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities for considering his case for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 6. As noticed, hereinabove, the father of the petitioner had died-in-harness on 12-05- 2014. Thereafter the case of the petitioner on being considered by the constituted committee, the claim of the petitioner was found not deserving for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds, noticing the financial condition of the petitioner’s family. Page No.# 4/6 7. The reasons assigned by the Constituted Committee being relevant, the same is extracted here-in-below:- “The family of the deceased receives a monthly family pension of Rs. 25,080/-, which appears to be sufficient to save the family from starvation. Otherwise also, a casual employee gets a lump sum monthly amount of about Rs. 13,000/- only. It is also found that, after death of Lt. Mahendra Seal, the family had received a considerable sum, i.e. Rs. 13,96,136/- which, if invested wisely, could alto generate a substantial monthly income. Hence, having regard to the fact of monthly pension and the regular income which can be generated from the substantial terminal/ aggregate amount, it appears that there is sufficient/ adequate financial resources available in the hands of dependents. Hence, the case does not deserve to be considered for Compassionate Appointment.” 8. The reasons assigned by the Constituted Committee has not been disputed by the petitioner in the present proceeding. The factual determination made therein with regard to the family pension as well as the retirement benefits received by the family of late Mahendra Seal has also not been disputed by the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the reasons as assigned by the Constituted Committee towards rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground would not mandate any interference. 9. Having drawn the above conclusion, this Court would now examine as to whether it would be permissible for this Court to pass a direction for a fresh consideration of the case of the petitioner, herein, for appointment on compassionate ground. As noticed above, the father of the petitioner had died-in-harness on 12-05-2014, 11 (eleven) long years have lapsed since the date of death of the father of the petitioner. The petitioner and his family members is found to have sustained during the last 11 (eleven) years after Page No.# 5/6 the death of the father of the petitioner. It is also noticed from the reasons assigned by the Constituted Committee for rejection of the case of the petitioner, at the relevant point of time was that the family of the petitioner being authorized a monthly pension of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), approximately, along with other retirement benefits, was financially secure, obliterating the need for the petitioner, herein, to be extended with an appointment on compassionate grounds. The intention behind extension of the benefit for appointment on compassionate ground being to immediately provide succor to the financial constraints faced by the family of the deceased employee on account of his untimely death, such appointment is to be granted proximate to the period the deceased employee had passed away. Immediacy is the norm for effecting such appointment. The long delay occasioning since the death of the father of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that immediacy is lost and the claim of the petitioner, herein, is rendered a stale one. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that no direction is permissible to be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, afresh for appointment on compassionate grounds. [Refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of WB Vs. Debabrata Tiwary & Ors., reported in 2023 SCCOnline (SC) 219]. 10. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost. JUDGE Page No.# 6/6 Comparing Assistant