Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010275552025 2026:GAU-AS:263 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/10/2026 MISS RINKY DEBNATH @ RINKY DEVNATH DAUGHTER OF LATE SURESH NATH, C/O- SRI SATYENDRA BHUYAN, R/O.- MAZGAON SAIKIA CHUBURI, J.P. AGARWALA PATH, P.O. AND P.S. TEZPUR, PIN-784505, DIST.- SONITPUR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (B) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.C. Biswas, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Baruah, Govt. Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Page No.# 2/5 Date : 07.01.2026 Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. S. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent Authorities in not considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 3. From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner’s father Late Suresh Nath was appointed as a Truck Driver against a substantive post under the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Sonitpur Road Division, Tezpur, District- Sonitpur, Assam. Late Suresh Nath expired on 27.01.2016 while in service, leaving behind the petitioner, her mother i.e. the wife of the deceased and one elder sister and younger brother of the petitioner. The petitioner initially applied in the year 2016 and on account of non-consideration, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 7820/2017. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to place the case of the petitioner for her compassionate appointment before the next available District Level Committee. Thereupon, on account of non-consideration, Page No.# 3/5 the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition. 4. It is no longer res integra that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment. It is an exception to the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712 had categorically laid down that 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. 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 Page No.# 4/5 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. 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 Page No.# 5/5 the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration.” 5. In the instant case, the petitioner has been able to sustain her livelihood for the last 10 years. It is the opinion of this Court that this is not a fit case wherein directions can be issued for consideration of the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant