Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010085082024 2026:GAU-AS:4117 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2307/2024 GAUTAM SAIKIA S/O- LATE JITEN SAIKIA, R/O- NAGAON FOUZDARY PATTY, P.S. NAGAON (SADAR), DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL (B) DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE 14THSTATE LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE HEADED BY ITS CHAIRMAN DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE HEADED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NAGAON DISTRICT- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 78200 Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S N ADHYAPAK, MS B DAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 23.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. S. N. Adhyapak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. C. Chutiya, learned Government Advocate, Assam representing the State respondents. 2. The father of the petitioner died-in-harness on 18.08.2016. His claim for compassionate appointment was denied for the reason that the deceased government employee was left with less than three years of service and such rejection was based on Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. 3. A coordinate Bench interfered with similar grounds of denial in a batch of writ petitions under its Judgment & Order dated 30.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 1646/2021 and other connected writ petitions. 4. The State preferred appeal against the aforesaid Judgment & Order by filing Writ Appeal No. 287/2023 and other connected writ appeals. The Division Bench at paragraphs 16 and 17 recorded the following conclusion:- “16. The absence of any contemporaneous reasoning diminishes any claim of the State that the choice of 3(three) years was the product of considered administrative evaluation for it not to be interfered with on the ground of such administrative Page No.# 3/4 policy being within the domain of executive and the usual restraint of the Courts in treading in such field. The executive must always conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Policy classifications must not be arbitrary, irrational or discriminatory without an intelligible basis. Compassionate appointment may not be an absolute vested right but it is a benefit conferred by the employer subject to policy conditions. The non-vested status of compassionate employment does not immunize arbitrary classifications from constitutional scrutiny. 17. On these grounds, we find the declaration of Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 to be constitutionally invalid by the learned Single Judge, to be wholly justified”. 5. Accordingly, at paragraphs 18, 19, 21 and 22, the Division Bench issued the following directions:- 18. Now the question to be decided is whether it was appropriate for the learned Single Judge, even while taking cognizance of the supersession of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 with Office Memorandum dated 14.09.2017, replacing Compassionate Appointment with Compassionate Family Pension and also the passage of long number of years since the death of the deceased employees in all the writ petitions, is justified? 19. The new Policy of the State vide Office Memorandum dated 14.09.2017 replacing Compassionate Appointment with Compassionate Family Pension Scheme would be applicable from a cut-off date in the year 2017, which is not applicable in cases of the respondents. The Policy of the State, which was prevalent at the time of death of the employees. would only be applicable to the respondents and in that case, there would be some justification for sustaining the relegating order by the learned Single Judge, notwithstanding the passage of more than 10(ten) years since the deaths. 21. We thus affirm the relegating order passed by the learned Single. Page No.# 4/4 22. While making such application before the concerned authorities. the private respondents, we may caution, must not entertain any false hopes and the concerned authorities also shall consider the "passage of time aspect seriously while assessing the suitability of the private respondents for compassionate appointment, which would be the most Important factor in recommending the cases of the private respondents for compassionate appointment, which ultimately may not withstand the judicial scrutiny if such recommendation is made after a long lapse of time since the death of the deceased employees”. 6. The learned counsels for the parties are in ad idem that this writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the determination made by the Division Bench. 7. This Court is also of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner is covered by the decision of the Division Bench. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed in terms of the determination made by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 287/2023 and other connected writ appeals and as quoted hereinabove. JUDGE Comparing Assistant