Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010208722025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5437/2025 ATAUR RAHMAN LASKAR S/O. LATE ISMAIL ALI LASKAR, R/O. DAKHIN SONAPUR PART - I, P.O. MATIJURI, P.S. HAILAKANDI, DISTRICT HAILAKANDI, ASSAM. PIN CODE 788155 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI - 781003 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HAILAKANDI KATLICHEERA ALGAPUR DIVISION IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT HAILAKANDI DISTRICT HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT HAILAKANDI REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER Page No.# 2/4 CACHAR P.O. AND P.S. HAILAKANDI DISTRICT HAILAKANDI ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K KALITA, MR. B BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, IRRIGATION BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER Date : 16-02-2026 Heard Mr. K Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior government Advocate, Assam and Ms. DS Neog, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner’s father, namely, Ismail Ali Laskar died in harness on 22.02.2009 when he was serving as Khalasi (Grade-IV), in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Hailakandi. It is the claim of the petitioner that his mother initially applied for compassionate appointment, however, no application to that effect is reflected. There is no reference of any date when the application was furnished or submitted or received by the Department. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his application for appointment on compassionate ground on 20.08.2016. It is his case that the Page No.# 3/4 Department thereafter has not considered his case for compassionate appointment. 3. A Coordinate Bench of this Court while considering similar matters had laid down certain guidelines in Achyut Ranjan Das vs. State of Assam reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674. Subsequently notification has been issued by the concerned Department and as per the notification dated 01.06.2015, whereby the conditions were incorporated in terms of the directions issued in Achyut Ranjan Das (supra). Thereafter, the Government has brought out notification dated 18.09.2024, whereby it was decided that no further appointment on compassionate ground will be permitted by the State. Subsequent thereto consequential notifications were issued. 4. The petitioner’s case is that the application submitted by the petitioner on 20.08.2016 has not been considered by the authorities. On the date when the petitioner submitted his application, the notification in force was the notification dated 01.06.2015. In terms of this notification, the legal heirs must file an application for compassionate appointment within 1 (one) year from the date of death of the Government Servant. Although a claim is made by the petitioner that his mother had initially applied within 1 (one) year, no particular has been enclosed to the writ petition in this regard. It is not in dispute that the petitioner Page No.# 4/4 submitted his application in the year 2016. Compassionate appointment is not a form of regular appointment for due consideration of public employment. The Apex Court as well as this Court have, in a catena of decisions, clearly enunciated the primary conditions required to be fulfilled for claiming compassionate appointment. The Apex Court has held in the State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. Reported in (20225) 5 SCC 712 that for due consideration for appointment on compassionate ground the primary consideration would be the hardship suffered by the petitioner. If the application is submitted after substantial period of time then the question of hardship has to be examined by the authorities on such materials as may be forwarded by the concerned applicants. All these have been carefully enunciated and discussed in the judgment of the Apex court rendered in Debabrata Tiwari (supra). Considering the findings of the Apex Court and which have been subsequently followed in numbers of Judgments and Orders passed by this Court, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant