Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010032842016 2025:GAU-AS:12134 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7542/2016 RAHUL DAS S/O. LT. DHIREN CHANDRA DAS, VILL. KULHATI, P.O. KULHATI, DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE ASSAM FINANCIAL CORPORATION REP. BY IT'S CHAIRMAN VITTIYA BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-8. 3:THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ASSAM FINANCIAL CORPORATION VITTIYA BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-8. 4:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM FINANCIAL CORPORATION VITTIYA BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-8. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUPR Page No.# 2/6 CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE KAMRUP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S SARMA, MR.G GOSWAMI,MSB DEVI,MS.T KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR.S ISLAM(R- 2-4),MS.D R DEKA(R- 2-4),SC, FINANCE,MS.M KONCH(R- 2-4) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 21/08/2025 Heard Mr. S Sarma along with Mr. G Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C K S Baruah, learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 5. 2. None has appeared for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4. 3. The petitioner in the present proceeding has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground against any Grade-D post available in the Assam Financial Corporation, i.e., the respondent No. 2. 4. As projected in the writ petition, the father of the petitioner, while working as a Messenger in the Assam Financial Corporation, i.e., respondent No. 2, had died-in-harness on 04.06.2015. The petitioner, in pursuance to the death of his father, had submitted an application complete, in all respect, before the authorities of the respondent No. 2, Corporation, praying for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground against the post of Messenger and/or Junior Assistant. 5. The petitioner projects that after submitting the said application, he was pursuing the matter with the respondent authorities and an assurance was held out to him for consideration of his case. However, the same not having been so considered, the petitioner had instituted the present Page No.# 3/6 proceeding before this Court. 6. Mr. S Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts as noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that it is an admitted position that the father of the petitioner was a regular employee of the respondent No. 2 Corporation and in pursuance to his premature death in harness on 04.06.2015, the family of the petitioner having been subjected to financial hardship, the petitioner had submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground. 7. It is submitted by Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Corporation being so created under the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, is not an autonomous body, but is one which is under the control of the Government of Assam. 8. It is submitted that although the respondent Corporation have projected in the present matter, that they have not formulated a scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, Mr. Sarma, submits that under the provisions of the said Act of 1951, the policies as adopted by the appropriate Government stands automatically applied to the Corporation and accordingly, the Government of Assam having formulated a scheme for appointment on compassionate ground for its employees, the same automatically stands extended to the Corporation as well and accordingly, the case of the petitioner was required to be so considered under the said existing scheme by the authorities of the Corporation. 9. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities of the Corporation, after the submission of the application for appointment on compassionate ground by the petitioner, had assured the family of the petitioner that said appointment would come through shortly. However, in spite of lapse of considerable period of time, the petitioner has not been extended with the consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. 10. Mr. Sarma, in the above premises submits that the respondent authorities, more particularly, the authorities of the respondent No. 2, Corporation are required to be directed by this Court for consideration of the case of the petitioner, herein, for appointment on compassionate ground and he submits that the need for such appointment persist, inasmuch as, the petitioner and his family members are continuing to face financial hardship. 11. Although, none had appeared for the respondent No. 2, Corporation in the matter, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the authorities of the Corporation in the present proceeding. Page No.# 4/6 12. A perusal of the said affidavit would go to show that in the Corporation, no policy for appointment on compassionate ground was so framed. It is further contended that in the corporation, no appointment on compassionate ground was affected during the period of its existence. 13. It was further contended in the said affidavit that the policy of the Government for appointment on compassionate ground not being adopted by the Corporation, would not be applicable in the case of its employees. The affidavit further goes to project that the terminal benefits that are due to an employee of the Corporation on his death was duly assessed and released to the mother of the petitioner and no further benefit in this connection is available to be paid to the petitioner and/or to any of his family members. 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 5 and have also perused the materials brought on record. 15. It is an admitted position that the father of the petitioner while working as a Messenger had died-in-harness on 04.06.2015 and the petitioner submitted an application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The application submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the respondent authorities and the reason as advanced for the same is that in the Corporation, there was no scheme formulated for appointment on compassionate ground and further, that the scheme for compassionate appointment as formulated by the Government of Assam for its employees was not adopted by the Corporation. 16. The materials brought on record reflects that there exists no scheme for appointment on compassionate ground in the respondent No. 2 Corporation, and further that it had not adopted the scheme for compassionate appointment as applicable to the employees of the Government of Assam. 17. The petitioner has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 39 of the Act of 1951 to project that instruction on question of policy as may be given by the State Government, in consultation with the Corporation would be mandate to be complied with by the authorities of the respondent No. 2, Corporation. 18. It was further projected that the scheme of compassionate appointment having been formulated by the Government of Assam for its employees has to be construed to be also applicable to the respondent No. 2, Corporation and the case of the petitioner is required to be so considered for appointment on compassionate ground there under. Page No.# 5/6 19. This Court has perused the provisions of Section 39 of the said 1951 Act and finds that the same would have no application to the facts as existing in the present case, more so, when the petitioner has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that the Government of Assam at any point of time had directed the authorities of the respondent No. 2, Corporation to implement its policy for compassionate appointment, for the employees of the Corporation. 20. It is a settled position of law that in absence of executive instructions and a rule been framed bringing into effect a scheme for appointment on compassionate ground in the organization concerned, no direction can be issued by this Court for consideration of the case of the next of kin of an employee of such organization for appointment on compassionate ground. [Refer decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Krishna Devi, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 246] . 21. Admittedly in the case in hand, there being no policy brought on record that has been formulated by the authorities of the respondent No. 2, Corporation bringing into operation a scheme for appointment on compassionate ground of the next of kin of the employees of the Corporation, this Court would not be in a position to direct the respondent No. 2, Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner, herein, for appointment on compassionate ground. 22. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court having held that no direction would be mandated to be issued to the authorities of the respondent No. 2, Corporation for consideration of the case of the petitioner in absence of a scheme for appointment on compassionate ground existing in the Corporation. This Court also notices that after the death of the father of the petitioner, while in service, around 10 years have lapsed thereafter. The petitioner and his family members having sustained a long period after the death of the bread earner of the family, the immediacy for appointment on compassionate ground has been lost. The claim made by the petitioner in the present proceeding has been rendered stale. This Court at this juncture would not be in a position to direct for consideration of the case of the petitioner, herein, for appointment on compassionate ground in the respondent No. 2, Corporation by framing a scheme. 23. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground having been rendered stale, no direction would be called upon to be issued upon the respondent No. 2 Corporation, to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Page No.# 6/6 24. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant