Page No.# 1/15 GAHC010189622026 2026:GAU-AS:13423 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4873/2026 SHRI NILOTPAL DAS S/O LATE CHAMPAK CHANDRA DAS, R/O VILL 108, JYOTINAGAR, WARD NO 6, NEAR BRILLIANT ACADEMY, KARIMCHOWK, MANGALDAI, DIST DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN 784125 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY 781006 2:THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM CUM CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT DISPUR GHY 781006 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM PERSONNEL B DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY 6 4:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY 6 5:STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN DISPUR Page No.# 2/15 GHY 6 6:THE CONCERNED DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (S) REPRESENTED BY THE CONCERNED DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DARRAN Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K SARMA, MRS. T BARMAN,S DIHINGIA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, IRRIGATION BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 09.09.2026 Heard Mr. B. K. Sarma, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. D. Das Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6; and Mr. R. M. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department, appearing for the Respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has assailed a Speaking Order dated 20.08.2026, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Irrigation Department, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, in view of non availability of vacancy within 5% quota, mandated to be reserved for such appointment. The petitioner, has further prayed for a direction upon the Respondent Authorities for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds, in terms of the decision arrived at in the matter by the State Level Page No.# 3/15 Committee, in its meeting held on 06.12.2023. 3. The facts in brief, requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present writ petition is noticed, as under; The father of the petitioner who was an employee in the Irrigation Department had died in harness on 07.03.2016. The petitioner therefore, submitted an application on 20.04.2016, for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The application submitted by the petitioner was considered by the jurisdictional District Level Committee, in its meeting held on 07.03.2016. The jurisdictional District Level Committee, however, without making any recommendation in favour of the petitioner against an identified post, had forwarded the application to the State Level Committee for consideration against available vacant post either in the Irrigation Department and/or in any other Department. Thereafter, the recommendation as made by the jurisdictional District Level Committee, remained pending, and was considered by the State Level Committee only in its meeting held on 06.12.2023. The State Level Committee on finding that there was no vacant post available within the 5% quota earmarked for appointment on compassionate grounds in the Irrigation Department, had directed the authorities in the Irrigation Department, to explore as to whether in other Departments of the Government, there were any vacancies available, against which the petitioner could be appointed. Page No.# 4/15 It was further stipulated that, in the event, a suitable vacancy is found to be available, the case of the petitioner be forwarded to the Department concerned for further consequential action towards appointing him on compassionate grounds. It was further stipulated that in the event, no vacancy is found in any other Department, the matter be disposed of by issuing a Speaking Order by the Irrigation Department. Accordingly, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Irrigation Department, vide order dated 20.08.2026, proceeded to dispose of the case of the petitioner by holding that as no vacancy was reported from any of the Departments, to which correspondences were made, there being no vacant post identified for the purpose of appointing the petitioner on compassionate grounds, his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected. It was further noticed in the said order dated 20.08.2026, that the scheme for compassionate appointment was withdrawn vide a Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. B. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the State Level Committee, having recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds against any vacant post Page No.# 5/15 commensurating educational qualification, available in any other Department, other than the Irrigation Department, Respondent Authorities in the Irrigation Department, were required to carry out a detailed examination of the matter for identifying a suitable vacant post for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. 4.1. Mr. Sarma, submits that, a perusal of the Speaking Order dated 20.08.2026, would go to reveal that the respondent in the Irrigation Department had in a most casual manner, proceeded to implement the directions passed in the matter by the State Level Committee and on basing on such casual approach, the Speaking Order came to be issued in the mechanical manner, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Mr. Sharma, submits that the respondents in the said Speaking Order dated 20.08.2026, have not spelt out the Departments to which the correspondences were issued by the Irrigation Department, seeking the vacancy position, therein. 4.2. In the above premises, Mr. Sarma, submits that the Speaking Order dated 20.08.2026, shall mandate an interference from this Court, with a further direction to the respondents, in the Irrigation Department to explore as to whether there are available vacant post in any other Departments, so as to implement the directions passed in favour of the petitioner by the State Level Committee, in a proper and fair manner. 5. Ms. D. Das Barman and Mr. R. M. Das, learned counsels, Page No.# 6/15 appearing for the respondents, have submitted that the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 20.08.2026, has not brought on record any materials to demonstrate that the conclusions drawn, therein, are perverse. It is submitted that the petitioner has not placed on record any material to indicate that during the period when the Irrigation Department was exploring availability of suitable vacant post in other Departments, for the purpose of appointing the petitioner on compassionate grounds, there were vacancies in existence in other departments against which the petitioner could have been appointed. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that considering the long lapse of time occasioning since the date of death of the Government servant which had occasioned on 07.03.2016, the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition has been rendered stale and no mandamus would be called to be issued for a fresh consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. The learned counsel for the respondents in this connection have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., reported in 2025 (5) SCC 712 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The death of the father of the petitioner in harness having Page No.# 7/15 occasioned on 07.03.2016, the petitioner had submitted an application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds on 20.04.2016. The said application is also found to have been considered by the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 07.03.2016. However, no recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner against a post identified for the purpose in the Irrigation Department. In terms of the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, the matter was forwarded to the jurisdictional State Level Committee for its consideration. The matter thereafter, remained pending. During the period, after the matter was forwarded by the jurisdictional District Level Committee to the State Level Committee for its consideration, this Court, from the materials brought on record in the present writ petition, does not find that the petitioner was diligently pursuing his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, rather it is evident that the petitioner was awaiting the outcome and had not taken any steps in the matter for pursuing his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. 8. Subsequently, it is found that the matter was placed before the jurisdictional State Level Committee, in its meeting held on 06.12.2023, and the State Level Committee in its said meeting had disposed of the claim of the petitioner in the following manner. “42. Sri Nilotpal Das, S/O Late Champak Chandra Das, Ex. Helper, 0/0 Executive Engineer, Mangaldoi-Dalgaon-Sipajhar Division, Irrrigation, Mangaldoi. Page No.# 8/15 Sri Nilotpal Das' father died in harness on 07.03.2016 and he applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 20.04.2016. Accordingly, DLC in its meeting dated 07.03.2016 forwarded the case of the applicant for appointment in any post. SLC decided to recommend the applicant for appointment in Gr-IV post Subject to availability of vacancy. On scrutiny of documents, the applicant was found to be eligible from the consideration of family income and otherwise. As there is no vacancy within the 5% quota earmarked for compassionate appointment under Irrigation Department, SLC directed Irrigation Department to seek vacancies from other Departments as per Clause 15 of OM No. ABP.50/2006/Pt/182 dated 01/06/2015. On finding a suitable vacancy in any Department, Irrigation Department should forward all relevant documents to that Department for further needful action towards her appointment. If no suitable vacancy is found in any Department, the matter may be disposed of by issuing a Speaking Order by the Department.” 9. A perusal of the said observations made by the State Level Committee, while considering the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds would go to reveal that there was no vacant post available for the purpose in the Irrigation Department. Accordingly, the State Level Committee, had required the authorities in the Irrigation Department, to explore availability of vacancies in any other Departments, as per Clause 15 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. 10. The said exercise is found to have been carried out by the Respondent Authorities in Irrigation Department and no vacancy having being reported to be available by any Department, for the purpose of appointing the petitioner on compassionate grounds, the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected in terms of the observations made by the State Level Committee, in its meeting held on 06.12.2023, by way of issuance of Speaking Order dated 20.08.2026. 11. This Court has perused the contentions raised by the Respondent Page No.# 9/15 Authorities in the Speaking Order dated 20.08.2026, and this Court finds that, therein, it has been spelt out that the authorities in the Irrigation Department, had explored the issue of availability of vacancies in other Departments and no response being received from the Department concerned, to which the correspondences were so made and/or a few Departments having not replied about availability of vacancies, the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected. Another ground projected in the Speaking Order dated 20.08.2026, for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is that vide Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024, the scheme for compassionate appointment was withdrawn by the Respondent Authorities. There being a specified averment made in the Speaking Order dated 20.08.2026, with regard to the non availability of vacancies in other Departments, the petitioner in the present writ petition is not found to have brought on record any materials to dispute the said position rather the petitioner in the present writ petition is silent with regard the said aspect of the matter. Further, the petitioner is also not found to have assailed the OM dated 18.09.2024. 12. Accordingly, considering the factual matrix involved in the matter and also the fact that the petitioner’s case was directed to be considered in a particular manner by the State Level Committee and the consideration in that direction was extended to him by the authorities in the Page No.# 10/15 Irrigation Department, this Court does not find the Speaking Order dated 20.08.2026, to be erroneous in any manner. Accordingly, the challenge of the petitioner to the said Speaking Order dated 20.08.2026, must necessarily fail. 13. Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court would examine the further prayer made by the petitioner for a fresh consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds, in terms of the decision of the State Level Committee as arrived at in its meeting held on 06.12.2023. 14. As noticed, hereinabove, the father of the petitioner had died in harness on 07.03.2016. Although the petitioner had submitted an application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds, on 20.04.2016, this Court finds that the petitioner has not diligently pursued the said application and has instituted the present writ petition only after the Speaking Order dated 20.08.2026, was so passed. 15. It is a settled position of law that an appointment on compassionate ground is to be so effected proximate to the time of death of the Government servant in harness, inasmuch as, the scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds is so formulated to provide a means of sustenance to the family of a Government servant, who are now left in penury on account of the premature death of the Government Servant. Page No.# 11/15 16. At this stage, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., reported in 2025 (5) SCC 712, is required to be noticed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision, had drawn the following conclusions:- "32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge: i. 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. ii. 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 dependents 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. iii. 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. iv. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. v. 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 bread-earner 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 Page No.# 12/15 position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependents 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 dependents 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 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. 34. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependents of the deceased employee being employed on compassionate grounds. The financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the time of the death of the deceased, is the primary consideration that ought to guide the authorities' decision in the matter. 35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of Page No.# 13/15 a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee. 36. Laches or undue delay, the blame-worthy conduct of a person in approaching a Court of Equity in England for obtaining discretionary relief which disentitled him for grant of such relief was explained succinctly by Sir Barnes Peacock, in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong, [1874] 3 P.C. 221 as under: "Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it or where by his conduct and neglect he has in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation, material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most be just is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute or limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of Justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy." 37. Whether the above doctrine of laches which disentitled grant of relief to a party by Equity Court of England, could disentitle the grant of relief to a person by the High Court in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of our Constitution, came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M. R. Meher, President, Industrial Court, Bombay, AIR 1967 SC 1450. In the said case, it was regarded as a principle that disentitled a party for grant of relief from a High Court in the exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 38. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 this Court restated the principle articulated in earlier pronouncements in the following words: "9. the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this Rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the Page No.# 14/15 extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction." 39. While we are mindful of the fact that there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, ordinarily, a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time, vide Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538; NDMC v. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278. 40. Further, simply because the Respondents-Writ Petitioners submitted their applications to the relevant authority in the year 2005-2006, it cannot be said that they diligently perused the matter and had not slept over their rights. In this regard, it may be apposite to refer to the decision of this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, wherein the following observations were made: 19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time." 17. Applying the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that if the prayer of the petitioner for consideration of his case afresh for appointment on compassionate grounds is accepted by this Court, it would mean extension to the petitioner of such consideration, after lapse of around 10 (ten) years, since the date of death of his father in harness. Considering the long lapse of time occasioning since the date of death of Page No.# 15/15 the Government servant concerned, this Court further finds that the sense of immediacy required to be maintained in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground, is diluted and lost. Accordingly, entertaining the claim at this point of time would be of no avail, because, admittedly, the petitioner and his family have sustained in the meanwhile, without any member of the family being favoured with an appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case to direct the Respondent Authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh for appointment on compassionate grounds. 18. In view of the foregoing discussions and conclusions reached, hereinabove, by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the issue involved in the present proceeding being a stale issue, it would not be permissible for this Court to issue any direction requiring consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in pursuance to death of his father, in harness, occasioning in the year 2016. 19. Accordingly, for the reasons assigned, hereinabove, the present writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant