JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Borbhuiya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. A. Chakraborty, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Government. I have also heard Ms. S. Sarma, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Health Department of the Government of Assam. 2. The instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. 3. The Petitioner herein has challenged the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel Department and the Executive Order dated 30.08.2025 followed by the notice dated 30.08.2025 issued by the Deputy Secretary, to the Government of Assam, Personnel Department and further has sought for a direction upon the Respondents to consider the claim of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment by taking his documents/particulars on record. 4. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the father of the Petitioner namely one Hifzur Rahman Mazumder (since deceased) while serving as a Surveillance Worker in the Office of the Joint Director of Health Service, Hailakandi died in harness on 12.02.2014 leaving behind his wife, mother, daughter and two sons including the Petitioner. The mother of the Petitioner submitted an application to the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Hailakandi to allow the Petitioner to submit his application when he becomes major. However, there is no document enclosed to that effect. 5. Be that as it may, the Petitioner submitted an application claiming compassionate appointment. The date on which such application was filed have not been mentioned in the writ petition. The District Level Committee in its meeting held on 11.02.2022 observed that though the Petitioner was found eligible for Grade-IV or equivalent post, there was no vacancy for compassionate appointment available at the Office of the Joint Director of Health Service, Hailakandi and the proposal was kept pending for consideration in the next meeting of District Level Committee. Thereupon, the Petitioner pursued his studies and in the year 2025, he did his Bachelor in Arts. Thereupon, the Petitioner pursued his studies and in the year 2025, he did his Bachelor in Arts. It is mentioned in the writ petition that the Petitioner could come to learn that an Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 was issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel Department, Dispur thereby abolishing the Scheme of compassionate appointment in the State of Assam in view of the judgment and order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others , (2025) 5 SCC 712 . 6. The Petitioner also came to learn that there was a challenge to the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 before this Court in various writ petition including WP(C) No.342/2025. Vide an order dated 03.04.2025, it was decided that the official Respondents would reconsider the claims of the compassionate appointment of all the writ petitioners on merits which were pending as on 03.04.2025 before the Court without adhering to the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 and all decisions of the DLC/SLC which were put to challenge as on 03.04.2025 before this Court were set aside by this Court by directing the Respondents to consider/reconsider the claims of compassionate appointment of such writ petitioners by the DLC/SLC afresh in accordance with law. 7. Pursuant to the said order, in the case of another Petitioner which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.2070/2025, an order was passed on 30.04.2025 directing the Respondents to consider the claims of the Petitioner in accordance with law. It is the further case of the Petitioner that an Executive Order was passed on 30.08.2025 followed by the Notice dated 30.08.2025 prescribing some new procedures whereby only those candidates were allowed to submit their documents/information till 15.09.2025 who had obtained favourable orders from this Court till 30.08.2025 for consideration of their claim for compassionate appointment by challenging the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel Department. The Petitioner having not approached this Court earlier, cannot apply pursuant to the notice dated 30.08.2025. Accordingly, the Petitioner has approached this Court by challenging the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 as well as the Notice dated 30.08.2025 so that the Petitioner can also submit his application in pursuance to the Notice dated 30.08.2025. 8. The Petitioner having not approached this Court earlier, cannot apply pursuant to the notice dated 30.08.2025. Accordingly, the Petitioner has approached this Court by challenging the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 as well as the Notice dated 30.08.2025 so that the Petitioner can also submit his application in pursuance to the Notice dated 30.08.2025. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has given an anxious consideration to the submissions so made. 9. The order dated 03.04.2025 passed in WP(C) No.342/2025 is relevant for the purpose of deciding the instant application. Under such circumstances, this Court finds it relevant to reproduce paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 herein below: “ 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 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.” 10. From a perusal of the above quoted paragraphs of the order dated 03.04.2025 passed in WP(C) No.342/2025 and other writ petitions, it is clear that this Court held that the said order shall only be applicable in respect to all writ petitions pending as on 03.04.2025 in the Gauhati High Court wherein there is a challenge to the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024. It is also mentioned that the said order dated 03.04.2025 cannot be used as a precedent for cases that are filed on 04.04.2025 and thereafter and it shall only apply to cases that are pending before this Court as on 03.04.2025. 11. This Court further takes note of that the Executive Order dated 30.08.2025 is based upon the order dated 03.04.2025. Similarly, the Notice dated 30.08.2025 which is also impugned is also based upon the order dated 03.04.2025. It is therefore the opinion of this Court that as the Petitioner has never challenged the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 on or before 03.04.2025, the order dated 03.04.2025 passed in WP(C) No.342/2025 acts as a bar for the Petitioner to challenge the Executive Order dated 30.08.2025 as well as the Notice dated 30.08.2025. 12. Now let this Court take note of the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 whereby a decision was taken by the Government of Assam that no cases for appointment on compassionate ground to the family members of the State Government employees who died in harness or retire prematurely or being declared permanently incapacitated for service or missing and whose whereabouts is not known prior to 31.03.2017 shall be entertained by any Administrative Department/Authority for any reason whatsoever nor be placed before the SLCs/DLCs for recommendation of the candidates for appointment on compassionate ground. 13. 13. In the instant case, it would be seen that the father of the Petitioner had expired on 12.02.2014 and a period of 12 years in the meantime have already elapsed. It is no longer res-integra that appointment on compassionate basis is not a source of recruitment but it is an exception to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is a policy decision of the State only for providing succor to the dependents of the deceased employee for avoiding destitution and to get over sudden financial crisis. It is also not a vested right to be exercised at any time in future and even in a case where for reasons of prolonged delay either by the applicant claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities deciding such claim, the immediacy is diluted and lost. 14. In the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) , the Supreme Court after analyzing various judgments on the issue formulated the principles governing the compassionate appointment. Paragraph Nos.32 and 33 of the said judgment being relevant are reproduced herein under: “ 32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge: 32.1. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives i.e. to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. 32.2. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. 32.3. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 32.4. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. 32.5. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 32.4. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. 32.5. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source. 33. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the breadearner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a breadwinner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration.” 15. In the instant case, it is seen that 12 years have already passed since the death of the Petitioner’s father, who was the sole bread earner of the family. In the instant case, it is seen that 12 years have already passed since the death of the Petitioner’s father, who was the sole bread earner of the family. The Petitioner as well as the other members of the family have been in the meantime able to overcome the difficulties and destitution which immediately had befallen upon them on the death of the sole bread earner of the family. The very concept of providing immediate succor on the basis of which the policy of compassionate appointment rest has already been diluted in the instant case. 16. Under such circumstances, the challenge to the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 in the opinion of this Court cannot be maintained by the Petitioner taking into account that the Petitioner as on date does not have any right to claim compassionate appointment on the basis of the policy of the Government to grant compassionate appointment in the present facts. 17. Accordingly, this Court therefore does not find any good ground for issuance of notice in the instant writ proceedings for which the writ petition stands dismissed.