Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010029312025 2025:GAU-AS:9243 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/845/2025 ABU TAHER LASKAR S/O- LATE TAJ UDDIN LASKAR, R/O -VILLAGE TULARGRAM PART-I, W/NO- 02, P.O- SONAIMUKH, P.S- SONAI, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788119. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM , PUBLIC WORKS (ROAD) DEPARTMENT, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS (ROAD) DEPARTMENT ESTABLISHMENT BRANCH DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS ROAD DEPARTMENT (ESTT. CELL-II) CHANDMARI ASSAM GUWAHATI-03. 4:THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER (P) PUBLIC WORKS ROAD DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI ASSAM GUWAHATI-03. 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS ROAD DEPARTMENT DHOLAI AND SONAI T.R. DIVISION DHOLAI Page No.# 2/9 DIST. CACHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H LASKAR, MR. P K DEKA,MR. P DAIMARY,J MEDHI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD ROAD, Linked Case : WP(C)/843/2025 SHRI ASHIM KR. DAS S/O- LATE SUDHIR CH. DAS R/O -VILLAGE TULARGRAM PART-II P.O- SONAIMUKH P.S- SONAI DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788119. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS (ROAD) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS (ROAD) DEPARTMENT ESTABLISHMENT BRANCH DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS ROAD DEPARTMENT (ESTT. CELL-II) CHANDMARI ASSAM GUWAHATI-03. 4:THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER (P) PUBLIC WORKS ROAD DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI ASSAM Page No.# 3/9 GUWAHATI-03. 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS ROAD DEPARTMENT DHOLAI AND SONAI T.R. DIVISION DHOLAI DIST. CACHAR ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. I H LASKAR Advocate for : SC PWD ROAD appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : Date: 17.07.2025 Heard Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the above noted two writ petitions. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, Assam, representing the respondents in the above noted two writ petitions. 2. The petitioners, by way of instituting the present proceedings have presented a challenge to a communication dated 18.04.2024, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works Department, Assam, rejecting their claims for regularization of their services and for extending to them the pension and pensionary benefits. WP(C) No. 843/2025 3. The father of the petitioner Sudhir Ch. Das, while working as Subordinate Officer (Grade-I) in the office of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD), Silchar Road Division, had died in harness on 05.02.1995. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the respondent authorities praying for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The application submitted by the petitioner, not being Page No.# 4/9 considered, he approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being Civil Rule No. 176/1997. This Court vide order dated 28.01.1997 was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition, directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds inconformity with the existing policy and subject to existence of vacancies. In pursuance to the said directions passed by this Court, vide the order dated 28.01.1997 in C.R. No. 176/1997, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Silchar Road Division, vide order 24.09.1997 was pleased to appoint the petitioner against the existing vacant post of Section Assistant in the Work-charged establishment. The petitioner, however, was authorized the scale of pay. The petitioner, accordingly, joined his services and thereafter, had approached the authorities at different points of time, praying for regularization of his services by highlighting that he was so appointed on compassionate grounds. The prayer made by the petitioner was considered by the respondent authorities and the same came to be rejected vide a communication dated 18.04.2024 Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings. WP(C) No. 845/2025 4. The father of the petitioner Taj Uddin Laskar, while serving as a Junior Engineer (Civil) in the office of the Executive Engineer, Silchar Road Division, PWD, had died in harness on 28.09.1993. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application before the respondent authorities praying for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The application as submitted by the petitioner not being considered, he had approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition being Civil Rule No. 2660/1995. This Court, vide order dated 07.07.1995, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition, directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the policy in place in this connection and against an existing vacant post. In terms of the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 07.07.1995 in C.R. No. 2660/1995, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Silchar Road Division, was pleased vide order dated 24.09.1997 to appoint the petitioner as a Section Assistant in the Work-charged Page No.# 5/9 establishment. The petitioner was also authorized a scale of pay. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the respondent authorities, praying for regularization of his services by highlighting that he was so appointed on compassionate grounds. The prayer made by the petitioner was considered by the respondent authorities and the same came to be rejected vide a communication dated 18.04.2024 Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners by reiterating the facts as noticed herein above has submitted that the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, although, were engaged as Work-charged Section Assistant, vide the issuance of the order dated 24.09.1997; the petitioners were compelled by the circumstances faced by their family to accept the said appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that there is no dispute existing in the matter that the initial appointment of the petitioners were so done on compassionate grounds and accordingly, the petitioners could not have been appointed against a post in the Work-charged establishment and were required to be so appointed against a substantive vacant post. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the appointment of the petitioners, there arose vacancies against posts, similar to the one held by them in the regular establishment, however; the case of the petitioners for accommodation against the said vacant posts so arising from time to time, were not considered by the respondent authorities in spite of repeated approach made by the petitioners in this connection. 6. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds as existing at the relevant point of time, when the case of the petitioners were so considered, did not contemplate appointment against a vacant post in the Work-charged establishment and the said scheme mandated the appointment of a eligible person on compassionate grounds, only against a vacant post in the regular establishment. In the aforesaid premises, Mr. Deka, learned counsel has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities for accommodation of the petitioners against any vacant sanctioned post available in the regular establishment and for consideration of Page No.# 6/9 the period of service rendered by the petitioners 24.09.1997; to have been so rendered in a regular establishment, so as to, facilitate the petitioners to draw pension and pensionary benefits as well as to be entitled to be considered for promotion to the next higher grades of the service. 7. Per contra, Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, representing the respondents in the above noted writ petitions has submitted that a perusal of the order dated 24.09.199; would go to reveal that the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions were appointed as Section Assistant in the Work-charged establishment. The petitioners accepted the said appointments and had continued to render their services in such capacity. It is submitted by Mr. Dhar, learned counsel, that the petitioners, at no point of time, had challenged the appointments made in their case in the Work-charged establishment, although, they were so engaged on compassionate grounds. 8. Mr. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, by referring to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das & Ors. (Order dated 08.06.2017 in Writ Appeal No. 45/2014) has submitted that no further regularization of services of persons engaged in Muster Roll/Work-charged establishment would be permissible and accordingly, the claim made by the petitioners in the present writ petitions would not mandate an acceptance by this Court. 9. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 10. At the outset, it is to be noted that the petitioners in the above noted two writ petitions, were so appointed on compassionate grounds in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court. The petitioners having been so appointed on consideration of their case under the scheme of compassionate appointment; it is not understood as to how the petitioners could have been appointed against a Work-Charged post and not against a regular sanctioned post. Even accepting the plea of the respondents, herein, that at the time of the initial entry into the service of the petitioners; there being no regular vacant Page No.# 7/9 post available for appointment of the petitioners under the compassionate appointment scheme, they were appointed against a Work-Charged post; the petitioners, herein, could not have been continued against the Work-Charged post, but, they ought to have been so accomodated against a vacant sanctioned post in the regular establishment. 11. It is to be noted here that the scheme of compassionate appointment as was prevalent at that relevant point of time, mandated the appointment of a candidate under compassionate appointment against a regular vacant post and not on temporary and/or ad hoc basis. In other words; such appointment must necessarily be so made against a regular sanctioned vacant post. However, since 1997, to be more specific, w.e.f. 24.09.1997, when the petitioners were so appointed; they were so continued against the Work-Charged post and it is not brought on record by the respondents that no post had so arisen in the regular cadre in the establishment of respondent No. 5 for accommodation of the petitioners against the same. 12. In view of the above discussion; this Court is of the considered view that any appointment on compassionate ground has to be so made on regular basis. A claim for compassionate appointment can either be accepted or rejected as per law. However, once a claim for compassionate appointment is accepted; it has to be understood to be a regular appointment. 13. The petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions were appointed under the died- in-harness scheme in the year 1997 to the post of Section Assistant against a Work- charged post in the establishment of respondent No. 5. This Court does not find any reason why a person appointed under the died-in-harness scheme should be kept on temporary basis for such a long period of time, more so, when the scheme does not contemplate appointment on temporary basis. 14. At this stage, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that regularization of the services of the petitioners would not be permissible at this stage, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das (supra), is Page No.# 8/9 being examined. 15. The said contention is being considered only to be rejected, inasmuch as, the petitioners in the above noted two writ petitions being appointees under the compassionate ground appointment scheme, they admittedly could not have been appointed against a post figuring in the Work-charged establishment. The right of the petitioners for being appointed against a substantive vacant post in the regular establishment accrued on them on the date of their initial appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das (supra) would not advance the case of the respondents. 16. In view of the above discussions, the respondent authorities are directed to accommodate the services of the petitioners in the above noted two writ petitions against regular sanctioned vacant post of Section Assistant and/or any other equivalent post in the establishment of the respondent no. 5. On such accommodation of the services of the petitioners in the above noted two writ petitions against a post of Section Assistant and/or any other equivalent post, the services rendered by the petitioners w.e.f. 24.09.1997; against a post of Section Assistant in the Work-charged establishment be deemed to have been so rendered by the petitioners in the regular cadre. 17. On such accommodation of the petitioners against a regular sanctioned post of Section Assistant and/or any other equivalent post, the petitioners shall be extended with all consequential benefits, including promotions, pension and other pensionary benefits. The services of the petitioners in the regular establishment shall be deemed to have commenced w.e.f. 24.09.1997. 18. The exercise as now required to be carried-out in terms of the directions passed by this Court hereinabove, shall be so initiated and concluded within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 19. With the above observations and directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of. Page No.# 9/9 JUDGE Comparing Assistant