Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010036732023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1274/2023 SUMITRA PHOOKAN W/O- LATE ARUPAM PHOOKAN, R/O- H.NO. 42, KRB ROAD, BHARALUMUKH, P.O AND P.S- BHARALUMUKH, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781009 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP.BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS (BUILDING AND NH) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE STATE LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE CHIEF SECRETARY ASSAM 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE DIST- KAMRUP (M) PIN-781001 ASSAM 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (M) PLANT MECHANICAL NH DIVISION PW (B AND NH) DEPARTMENT ULUBARI GUWAHATI-0 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R SHOME, MR D NANDI,RAJ HAZARIKA,MR A J GHOSH,MR S CHAUHAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P W D, GA, ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM ORDER Date : 30/04/2025 Heard Mr. A.R. Shome, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, appearing for the respondent nos. 1 & 4 and Ms. A. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent nos. 2 & 3. The husband of the writ petitioner, who was serving under the Government of Assam, died in harness on 16/09/2013. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The date on which the application was filed is, however, not available on record. According to the petitioner, her case was duly recommended by the District Level Committee (DLC) but it was not considered by the State Level Committee (SLC). Hence, this writ petition. Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, Assam, submits that after the issuance of the Office Memorandum dated 18/09/2024, there is a complete ban on appointment of candidates on compassionate ground and, therefore, the prayer made in this writ petition cannot be considered at this point of time. Similar is the submission of Ms. A. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate, Assam. Mr. Shome, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has not denied or disputed the fact that after the OM dated 18/09/2024, a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner would not lie. However, it has also been brought to the notice of this Court that by the judgement and order dated 03/04/2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 342/2025 and the connected batch of writ petitions wherein, the OM dated 18/09/2024 was assailed, certain observations and directions have been made in para 9 & 10, which are reproduced herein below for ready reference :- “9. In view of the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, all the writ petitions that are pending as on today, i.e., 03.04.2025, in the Gauhati High Court, which have put to challenge the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024, are to be decided as follows:- (i) All the applications for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioners shall be considered and disposed of by the concerned DLC/SLC on merit, 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 Page No.# 3/3 Supreme Court and the High Court. Consequently, the rejection of all compassionate appointments 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. (ii) 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 concerned 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 proper. The 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, 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.” Under the circumstances and as agreed to by both the sides, this writ petition stands disposed of by granting liberty to the writ petitioner to make appropriate application before the competent authorities seeking relief subject to the condition that a proper case is made out on facts, in the light of the observations made in paragraphs 9 & 10 of the judgement and order dated 03/04/2025. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant