Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010050272023 2025:GAU-AS:6991 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./44/2023 CHIMPI GOGOI D/O- LATE HORENDRA NATH GOGOI, R/O- VILLAGE HINDU GAON, P.O AND P.S- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-787001. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY -CUM- CHAIRMAN STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC) REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-783129 4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER (DEEO) Page No.# 2/8 LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-78312 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A HAWARI, MR. S U AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, ELEM. EDU Linked Case : WP(C)/6809/2022 CHIMPI GOGOI D/O- LATE HORENDRA NATH GOGOI R/O- VILLAGE HINDU GAON P.O AND P.S- NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY -CUM- CHAIRMAN STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC) REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-783129 Page No.# 3/8 4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER- (DEEO) LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-783129 ------------ Advocate for : MR. S U AHMED Advocate for : SC ELEM. EDU appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK ORDER 30.05.2025 Heard Mr. S U Ahmed, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel Elementary Education Department for the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 and Mr. S. R. Baruah learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. This review petition by the petitioner is for review of the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 6809/2022 by which the said writ petition preferred by her for her compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme was dismissed for the reasons that the District Level Committee (DLC) for compassionate appointment, Lakhimpur on 24.02.2017, 16.02.2018 and 04.07.2018 considered the case of the petitioner and on 04.07.2018 the said DLC rejected her claim for compassionate appointment as the same had spent its force in terms of Government Letter No. ABP.92/2012/32 dated 20.12.2012. 3. The case of the petitioner in said WP(C) No. 6809/2022 that she is a Graduate with Major in Sociology from Dibrugarh University. Her father, Horendra Nath Gogoi, an Assistant Teacher of Rampur MV School, District-Lakhimpur, a provincialised Upper Primary School under the Directorate of Elementary Education, Assam, died in harness on 19.04.2016. Page No.# 4/8 4. Then, the petitioner on 30.05.2016, much within the time specified, applied before the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Lakhimpur for her appointment on compassionate ground under the Die-in-Harness Scheme of the State. 5. On 20.06.2016 the petitioner filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur informing the said authority that she had filed an application before the DEEO, Lakhimpur for her appointment on compassionate ground under the Die-in-Harness Scheme which had already been forwarded by the said DEEO, Lakhimpur to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur for consideration of her case and requested the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur for consideration of her case. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the connected writ petition, WP(C) No. 6809/2022 on 21.10.2022, praying amongst others, for a direction to the DEEO, Lakhimpur to place the case of the petitioner before the District Level Committee for compassionate appointment, Lakhimpur in its next meeting. 7. On 27.10.2022, the Court directed the learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the State respondents to place the relevant instructions, fixing the matter on 16.11.2022. 8. On 16.11.2022, the learned Government Advocate, Assam placed instructions in the matter, stating that the case of the petitioner was placed before the DLC for compassionate appointment, Lakhimpur in its meetings held on 24.02.2017, 16.02.2018 and 04.07.2018. Though in those meetings case of the petitioner was placed before the DLC for compassionate appointment, Lakhimpur, for consideration of her appointment on compassionate ground, but due to non-availability of vacancies, her case could not be considered. 9. Learned Government Advocate, Assam on instruction also stated that the DLC for compassionate appointment, Lakhimpur in its meeting held on 04.07.2018 while considering the case of the petitioner for her compassionate appointment on the death of her father on 19.04.2016 came to a conclusion that her claim for compassionate appointment has spent its force in terms of the Government Letter No. ABP.92/2012/32 dated 20.12.2012. 10. The instruction that was placed before the Court by the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur was incomplete and accordingly, on 16.11.2022 the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur was directed to apprise the Court about the procedure the DLC for compassionate appointment, Lakhimpur followed since 01.06.2015 for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground, Page No.# 5/8 fixing the matter on 13.12.2022. 11. On 13.12.2022, the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur by its communication dated 11.12.2022 placed a detailed report as to how the DLC Lakhimpur considered the case of the petitioner stating her financial position, which is as follows – “Two Nos. of family members after the death of the father of the applicant, she was unmarried at the time of her application and there was no other dependent family members employed.” With regard to the family income status, monthly family pension was Rs. 8599/-, Death come Retirement Gratuity amount received was Rs. 5,41,434/-, General Provident Fund Rs. 2,10,000/-, LIC insurance amount Rs. 4,25,112/-, income from other services Rs. 12,10,145/-.” 12. The DLC, Lakhimpur found that in the year 2016-17 the vacancies of Upper Primary Teachers were 91, Lower Primary Teachers were 124, Grade-III incumbents were 10 and Grade- IV employees were 4. As such, following the 5% quota, 5 posts of Upper Primary Teachers, 7 posts of Lower Primary Teachers and 1 post of Grade-IV were found under 5% quota for consideration under compassionate ground. 13. Considering the case of the petitioner, the DLC for compassionate appointment, Lakhimpur observed to place the case of the petitioner in its next meeting. 14. In its next meeting held on 16.02.2018, the DLC, Lakhimpur considered the fact that during the year 2017-18 found vacancies of 31 numbers of posts of Upper Primary Teachers, 102 posts of Lower Primary Teachers and 6 posts of grade-IV posts. As such, 2 Nos. of Upper Primary Teachers, 6 Nos. of Lower Primary Teachers were considered for compassionate appointment, but the case of the petitioner could not be considered for compassionate appointment and due to non-availability of vacancies, deferred her case to its next DLC. 15. On 04.07.2018, the DLC for compassionate appointment, Lakhimpur found 3 vacancies for Assistant Teachers, 1 vacancy for Junior Teachers and 4 vacancies for Grade-IV posts for consideration under compassionate ground of 5% quota under the Die-in-Harness Scheme. 16. The DLC for compassionate appointment, Lakhimpur, North-Lakhimpur in the said meeting held on 04.07.2018 after consideration of the case of the petitioner found that the claim of the petitioner spent its force as per the Government Letter No. ABP.92/2012/32 dated 20.12.2012. Page No.# 6/8 17. From the decision of this Court in the case of Faziron Nessa and Ors. -Vs- State of Assam, reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340, it is seen that the Court very specifically provided that – the outer limit of filing application for compassionate appointment under the die-in-harness scheme is only 1 (one) year from the date of death of the concerned Government employee. Further, it has already been settled that – compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. 18. The Court in the case of “Achyut Ranjan Das -Vs- State of Assam & Ors.” reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674 have held that – “If the applications of eligible candidates remain pending and cannot be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of 2 (two) years from the date of making such applications, all such applications will require no further consideration and must be understood to have spent their force”. 19. The Court in the case of “Ajit Pator & Ors. -Vs- State of Assam & Ors.” reported in 2009 (3) GLT 306 have held that – “Once consideration of a case as a one-time measure is over, such applications that may remain pending are not required to be considered, if a period of more than two years had elapsed”. 20. The State Government in supersession of its earlier orders framed certain schemes for compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness scheme by issuing Office Memorandums in its Personnel (B) Department and the Finance Department. 21. From those schemes, it can be seen that compassionate appointment under the Die-in- Harness Scheme is only for the purpose to recover from the financial crisis that a family of a deceased Government employee faces on the death of the sole bread earner of the family. 22. It is well settled that – the Compassionate Appointment is given as an immediate measure only to get over the death of the bread earner at that point of time and there cannot be any vested right on such appointment except that such consideration can only be done as per prevailing policy. After passage of long time, the sense of immediacy gets lost. The very reason for giving compassionate appointment or compassionate benefit is lost once the immediacy has died down. Once the long time passed by, the compassionate element stands extinguished. A family who could survive for long years would not be entitled to any compassionate benefit since compassionate benefit is not a largesse nor it is a rule in the employment. Page No.# 7/8 23. Considering the decisions of the Court passed earlier in the cases of Faziron Nessa (Supra), Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra) & Ajit Pator (Supra) and the consideration of the District Level Committee for compassionate appointment, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in its meetings held on 24.02.2017, 16.02.2018 and 04.07.2018, the Court after reconsideration of the matter did not find any valid reason to consider the prayer of the petitioner made in the writ petition and therefore, her said writ petition WP(C) No. 6809/2022 was dismissed on 13.12.2022. 24. The contention of the petitioner before the Court for review of the said order dated 13.12.2022 passed in her WP(C) No. 6809/2022 is that there were sufficient vacancies for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground, but the DLC for compassionate appointment, Lakhimpur, North-Lakhimpur did not consider her case in proper perspective. 25. It is seen that superseding it’s all Office Memorandums and Notifications relating to appointment on compassionate ground of the dependents of State Government employees who die in harness or retire prematurely on being declared incapacitated for service, the State Government in the Personnel Department (II) vide No. ABP.50/2006/Pt/182 dated 01.06.2015 issued an Office Memorandum for such appointment on compassionate ground, that came into force w.e.f. 01.06.2015. 26. Clause 15 of the said Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 stipulates that — If sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to accommodate the persons in the waiting list for compassionate appointment, it is open to the administrative Department/Office to take up the matter with other Departments/Offices of the Government to provide at an early appointment on compassionate grounds to those in the waiting list. 27. Clause 24(d) of the said Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 provides that —While disposing of the applications by way of rejection clear speaking order shall be recorded stating the reasons of rejection and a copy of such order shall be furnished to the applicants. 28. On 24.02.2017, 16.02.2018 and 04.07.2018 when the DLC for compassionate appointment, Lakhimpur, North-Lakhimpur took up the case of the petitioner for appointment on compression ground under the Die-in-Harness Scheme, the Office Memorandum No. ABP.50/2006/Pt/182 dated 01.06.2015 was very much in force. But it is seen that the DLC for compassionate appointment, Lakhimpur, in its meetings on 24.02.2017 and 16.02.2018 did not Page No.# 8/8 comply with the provisions of Clause 15 of the said Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 and also on 04.07.2018, while rejecting the case of the petitioner. 29. Moreover, in its meetings on 24.02.2017 and 16.02.2018, the DLC for compassionate appointment, Lakhimpur did not state the reasons why it deferred the case of the petitioner for her appointment on compression ground, though posts under 5% quota for appointment on compression ground under the Die-in-Harness Scheme in the Elementary Education Department of Lakhimpur District were available. 30. For such non-compliance of the provisions laid down by the State Government in its Office Memorandum No. ABP.50/2006/Pt/182 dated 01.06.2015 relating to appointment on compassionate ground of the dependents of State Government employees who die in harness by the District Level Committee for compassionate appointment, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur while deferring the case of the petitioner on 24.02.2017 and 16.02.2018 and rejecting her case on 04.07.2018 and for the reasons above, the Court found that the petitioner could place sufficient grounds for review of the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 6809/2022. 31. Accordingly, the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 6809/2022 is hereby recalled and the connected WP(C) No. 6809/2022 is restored to the file. 32. Registry shall place the connected WP(C) No. 6809/2022 before the appropriate Bench at the earliest. 33. With the above observations and directions this review petition stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant