Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010027832025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1116/2025 ASHIM KUMAR DEKA S/O- LATE NIRANJAN DEKA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KALBARI, PO KHOLAGAON, DIST MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783411. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (IN SHORT P AND RD) DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN NAMELY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC) FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT MORIGAON REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY/ DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MORIGAON CUM CHAIRMAN DLC MORIGAON Page No.# 2/9 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K TALUKDAR, MS. S T BOKTH,T R OVUNG,MR. J M A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, P AND R.D. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER Date : 27.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. S.K Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Also heard Mr. A.K Ghosh, learned Standing counsel, P&RD, Assam. 3. The matter pertains to the appointment of the petitioner under the die-in-harness scheme. The petitioner's father was working as a PRI employee under Morigaon Zilla Parishad, who died in harness leaving behind the petitioner and other dependents. The grievance of the petitioner is that he filed his application for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme before the Authority in time. Thereafter, his case was considered by the District Level Authority (DLC). However, his case has not been duly considered by the State Level Committee (SLC). 4. It is further submitted that the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 is under challenge before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by which the Government of Assam has taken a decision that there shall be no further appointment to be made under the compassionate ground for those government employees who expired before 2017. This Office Memorandum has been brought out following the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Others. in Civil Appeal No.8842 & 8855 of 2022. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the Page No.# 3/9 pleadings available on records. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties before this Court that the issues involved in this writ petition are akin to the issues which were decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.342/2025 and a batch of writ petitions and which were disposed of by the judgment and order dated 03.04.2025. The said judgment and order dated 03.04.2025 is quoted herein below: "All the writ petitioners have prayed for setting aside the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 18.09.2024 issued by the Government of Assam, Personnel (B) Department, by which the scheme for compassionate appointment has been done away with for all those family members of the Government servants, who died in harness prior to 01.04.2017. The OM dated 18.09.2024 has been issued in complete supersession of the compassionate appointment policy, notified by the Government of Assam, Personnel (B) Department, vide OM No. ABP.50/2006/Pt-182 dated 01.06.2015 and other related Personnel Department office memorandums, pertaining to the said compassionate appointment policy. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the prayer of the petitioner that the State Government should consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on merit and not reject the petitioner's application only by referring to the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024. Page No.# 4/9 4. On considering the various writ petitions submitted by the petitioners, it is found that the cases of the petitioners' allude to different facts and circumstances, which would require this Court to go into the merits of each individual writ petition, with regard to the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment. 5. The various writ petitions can be divided into various categories, based on different facts. Some of the writ petitions throw up the following issues, which is not exhaustive, in relation to the compassionate appointment applications, which are as follows:- 1. What happens when an application for compassionate appointment has been recommended by the District Level Committee (DLC) and has not been decided by the State Level Committee (SLC)? 2. What happens when the DLC/SLC has rejected an application for compassionate appointment and this Court has directed for reconsideration of the application? Whether the OM dated 18.09.2024 shall override the direction passed by this Court? 3. Whether the decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others (Civil Appeal No. 8842- 8855/2020) would apply in cases where the DLC and the SLC have not considered the application, though the applications had been submitted within time and prior to 01.04.2017? Page No.# 5/9 4. Whether the law/scheme prevalent on the death of the deceased Government employee is to be considered, while deciding an application for compassionate appointment or whether the law/scheme prevalent at the time of consideration of the application by the DLC/SLC should be the basis for considering the application? 5. Whether a person can challenge the OM dated 18.09.2024, when his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the DLC or SLC? 6. Whether two family members of a deceased Government servant can file different applications for compassionate appointment? 7. Whether the son of the deceased Government servant can file an application for compassionate appointment, when the application of the surviving spouse has been rejected by the DLC/SLC? 8. Whether the minor child can wait to become a major and thereafter file an application for compassionate appointment? 9. Whether the surviving mother/father can file an application for compassionate appointment for and on behalf of the minor child and whether the same is to be considered by the Authorities when the minor attains majority? 6. On the other hand, it is the case of the State respondents Page No.# 6/9 that there is no infirmity with the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024 issued by the Government of Assam, Personnel (B) Department, as the same has been made pursuant to the judgment of The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tivari and others (Oxit Appeal No. 8842-8855/2020), which was decided on 03.03.2020. 7. Without going further into the issue as to whether the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024bt in lew or not, I would be proper to refer to the proposal that had been matte by the learned AG, Assam on an earlier date, which is to the effect that all the applications for compassionate appointment, in relation to the cases which are pending in this Court, Challenging the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024, shall be considered by the concerned authorities on merit. The same would be done by taking Into account the various guidelines for compassionate appointment prior to 01.04.2017 that were applicable in the State of Assam and the various decisions passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court and the High Court. 8. The counsels for all the petitioners have submitted that they are agreeable to the proposal made by the leamed AG, Assam and as such, do not wish to press their challenge to the impagned OM dated 18.09.2024 any longer. 9. In view of the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, all the writ petitions that are pending as on today, le, 03.04.2025, in the Gauhati High Court, which have put to challenge the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024, are to be Page No.# 7/9 decided as follows:- (1) All the applications for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioners shall be considered and disposed of by the concerned DLC/SLC on menit 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 appointment 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. (i) 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 concemed 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. 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 propes. The Page No.# 8/9 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, ie, 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. 11. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of." 8. Accordingly, this Court without going into the merit of the case disposes of the present writ petition by directing the concerned respondent to dispose of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on merit, as they deem it fit and proper within a period of 2 (two) months from today. The decision taken by the concerned authority should be based on reasons and the decision taken should be communicated to the petitioner thereafter. It is also directed that while deciding the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment, the respondents cannot take recourse to the impugned OM dated 01.06.2015, 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. Page No.# 9/9 9. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant