Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010027882025 2025:GAU-AS:1888 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/941/2025 SRI JAHIRUL ISLAM S/O- LATE NAIMUL ISLAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SILPUKHURI,PO SILPUKHURI, PS MIKIRBHETA, DIST MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782123 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN NAMELY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MORIGAON ASSA Page No.# 2/8 Advocate for the Petitioner : T R OVUNG, MR. S K TALUKDAR,MS. S T BOKTH Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, P AND R.D. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Advocate for the petitioner : Ms. S.T. Bokth Advocate for the respondents : Shri R. Dhar, Addl. Sr. GA, Assam Shri S. Dutta, SC, P&RD Dates of hearing : 21.02.2025 Date of Judgment : 21.02.2025 Judgment & Order The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging, inter alia the action of the State Level Committee (hereinafter SLC) taken in its meeting dated 02.03.2023 to defer the decision for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground due to non-submission of No objection Certificate (NOC) & Next of Kin (NOK). 2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that his father, Naimul Islam, who was working as Tax Collector-cum-Road Maharer under the Morigaon Zilla Parishad, had died in harness. The petitioner who claims to be eligible had applied for appointment on compassionate ground and the District Level Committee (DLC), Morigaon had recommended the name of the petitioner on 07.10.2017. The SLC however, vide the impugned minutes of meeting dated 02.03.2023 has deferred the decision for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground due to non- submission of NOC & NOK. Page No.# 3/8 3. I have heard Ms. S.T. Bokth, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam and Shri S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P & RD Department. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned decision of the SLC to defer the matter is not in accordance with law as it is implied that on the recommendation made by the DLC, all the formalities were fulfilled. She has also highlighted that the petitioner meets all the requirements for consideration and appointment on compassionate ground. She has also contended that vide an order dated 20.08.2024, another person has been appointed and therefore, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered. 5. Per contra, Shri Dhar, learned State Counsel, at the outset, has submitted that there is no candid disclosure in the petition and the date of the death of the Government Servant has not been stated in the petition. The said date however would be revealed from the minutes of the meeting which turns out to be 13.03.2002. He submits that the objective of the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground is to give immediate relief to a bereaved family which has lost its sole bread winner, who was a Government servant. It is submitted in the instant case that the death was in the year 2002 and in the meantime, almost 23 years have passed and therefore, there is no requirement in law for such consideration. 6. Shri Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P & RD Department has endorsed the submission of the learned State Counsel. 7. The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have Page No.# 4/8 been duly considered. 8. Though, the date of death has not been disclosed in the petition, from the annexure, the date of death of the father of the petitioner appears to be 13.03.2002. It also appears that the consideration by the DLC was of 07.10.2017. In the opinion of this Court, such consideration, after a lapse of 15 years was itself unwarranted as in the meantime, the urgency was lost. 9. The grievance is the decision of the SLC in the meeting dated 02.03.2023 to defer the consideration for non-submission of the NOC & NOK. Such grounds, apart from appearing to be reasonable and objective, the approach to this Court is almost after two years of such decision. Be that as it may, the aspect of the death being of the year 2002 vis-à-vis the claim for a direction for consideration of compassionate appointment cannot be overlooked. The objective of the scheme, which is an exception to the general mode of recruitment is to give immediate succor to a family which has lost its sole breadwinner who was a Government servant and such objective would not survive after a gap of 23 years. 10. The law on compassionate appointment has been elaborately explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219. In the said case, almost all the earlier cases on the subject of compassionate appointment have been discussed and the principles have been laid down. It has been reiterated that an appointment on compassionate ground is a departure from the normal rule and is an exception which is meant only to enable the bereaved family to tie over the sudden financial crisis on the death of a government servant while in service. It has also been clarified that it is not a vested right and the aspect Page No.# 5/8 of delay would be of paramount consideration. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow- “7.2. 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 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 dependants 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. Page No.# 6/8 (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.” 11. On the aspect of delay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), while examining the said aspect from the context of the scheme has also laid down that even if the delay is on account of the authorities, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. The relevant part as observed in paragraph 7.5 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below:- “7.5. 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, an noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate Page No.# 7/8 appointment as thought 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.” 12. An appointment on compassionate ground is a departure from the normal mode of recruitment wherein a certain quota (5%) is reserved and the objective is to enable a bereaved family losing their sole breadwinner who was a Government servant to overcome the immediate financial crisis. It has been laid down that such appointment cannot be held to be a matter of any vested right and it is not a source of recruitment. 13. In the instant case, the issue regarding delay is required to be considered vis-à-vis the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 7.5 of the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra). It has been clearly laid down that in case of prolonged delay either on the part of the applicant or the authorities, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. In view of such law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has no other option but to hold that any further direction for consideration of the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground after a period of about 23 years from the death of a Government servant would not be in sync with the objective of the scheme for compassionate appointment. 14. As regards the submission that another person has been appointed, apart from the fact that such person has not been made a party Page No.# 8/8 respondent, no details, whatsoever has been given in the petition more particularly, the date of death of the Government Servant, nature of service etc. 15. Accordingly, this Court is not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioner. 16. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant