Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010054082026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1636/2026 SHRI IMRAN HUSSAIN LASKAR S/O- LATE KHAIRUDDIN LASKAR, R/O- VILL.- GONIGRAM PT- I, P.O.- GONIGRAM, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788025 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PERSONNEL (B), DEPARTMENT., DISPUR, GHY- 6. 2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN I.E. THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY-6. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER -CUM- CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC) SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN- 788710 4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER KARIMGANJ FOREST DIVISION. DIST.- SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN - 78871 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H LASKAR, R BORAH,J MEDHI,MS. N M Page No.# 2/8 LONGKENG,MR. R. KARIM,MR. P DAIMARY,MR. P K DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FOREST BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 25.03 .2026 Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, learned Jr. Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature by the DLC while considering his claim for appointment on compassionate ground. The case of the petitioner was rejected by the DLC by placing reliance on Clause 1 of the OM dated 01.06.2015, wherein it was stated that if the Government servant has less than 3 years of service at the time of his death, then the legal heirs or family members would not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 3. This clause was challenged before the Court in a bunch of writ petitions where the lead case was WP(C) No.1646 of 2021 and the Co-ordinate Bench by its judgement and order dated 30.01.2023 allowed the writ petitions by setting aside Clause 1 of the OM dated 01.06.2015. 4. Subsequently, that judgement came to be assailed by the State by filing appeal being WA No.287/2023. The Division Bench of this Court by its Page No.# 3/8 judgement and order dated 12.12.2025 in the said Writ Appeal & other connected matters rejected the contentions of the appellants and had dismissed the appeal while affirming the order passed by the Co-ordinated Bench. The Division Bench also considered the judgement of the Apex Court rendered in State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors :: (2025) 5 SCC 712, as also other judgments on this issue and thereafter, allowed the writ appeal with the following directions: “12. After having said that, we deem it appropriate to examine the correctness of the decision of the learned Single Judge in declaring Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 to be unconstitutional. 13. We find that the classification made on the basis of the remaining service period left for the deceased employee is neither intelligible nor has any nexus with the differentia sought to be achieved. 14. The respondents constitute a homogenous class of persons, whose bread-earners have died in harness. They come within exception laid down in D.S. Nakara (supra). It would be inappropriate for the State to contend that the purpose of the classification was to avoid fraud or misuse. Fraud or misuse may occur, irrespective of the length of service remaining. Limiting the benefits to dependants of the deceased employees, who have 3(three) years of service remaining, does not necessarily reduce the risk of fraudulent claims; a would-be fraudster could equally fabricate or collude in cases where a deceased employee had long remaining service. There is no logical causal connection between the duration of remaining service and the likelihood of such misuse. 15. We find force in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that the claim of the State that the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 is in accordance with the 10(ten) principles enunciated Page No.# 4/8 in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra) and the Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2013 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, is factually incorrect. The learned Single Judge did not find any rationale in the draft note preceding the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 was approved by the State Cabinet. 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 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. 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 Page No.# 5/8 the relegating order by the learned Single Judge, notwithstanding the passage of more than 10(ten) years since the deaths. 20. Though we have taken the argument of the learned Advocate General with some seriousness that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Debabrata Tiwari (supra) prohibits compassionate appointment after long passage of time, but in the present set of cases, closing the chapter for the private respondents would not be appropriate. 21. We thus affirm the relegating order passed by the learned Single Judge. 22. We thus affirm the relegating order passed by the learned Single 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. 23. With the afore-noted observations, we close these appeals with the hope that the statutory authorities while deciding the cases of the private respondents shall appropriately apply the law with regard to compassionate appointment. 24. The appeals stand disposed off accordingly.” 5. Having perused the judgement of the Division Bench and upon hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also after careful Page No.# 6/8 examination of the pleadings available before the Court, it is seen that the petitioner’s case was also rejected by the DLC in its minutes held on 26.06.2023. The DLC opined that the applicant was not the writ petitioner in the writ petition being WP(C) No.1646 of 2021 nor the petitioner in any of the linked petitions and therefore, the DLC had rejected the claim of the writ petitioner. 6. This conclusion made by the DLC appears to be contrary to law. The judgement and order dated 30.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No.1646/2021 and other connected writ petitions had interfered with the Clause 1 of the OM dated 01.06.2015. The judgement does not reflect anywhere that the judgement would be applicable only in respect of the writ petitioners who were before the Court. Therefore, the judgement rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench by judgement and order dated 30.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 1646/2021 is a judgement in rem. The Clause 1 of the OM dated 01.06.2015 stood set aside w.e.f. the date of the judgement i.e. 30.01.2023. Therefore, pursuant to the judgement dated 30.01.2023, the Clause 1 in the OM dated 01.06.2015 ceased to have any legal force or effect and is to be treated as non est in law, rendering it unenforceable and effectively wiped out. In other words, the effect of setting aside the clause would mean that the clause No.1 never existed in the OM dated 01.06.2015 or will have to be read as such. Therefore, on a date when the DLC had considered the case of the writ petitioner on 26.06.2023, the said clause was not available in the OM dated 01.06.2015 by virtue of the judgement and order dated 30.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No.1646/2021. Therefore, even assuming that the writ petitioner was not a petitioner in WP(C) No.1646 of 2021 and the other connected writ petitions, the fact remains that the said Clause 1 Page No.# 7/8 in the OM dated 01.06.2015 having already being set aside vide judgment and order dated 30.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No.1646/2021 and others connects writ petitions, the rejections of the petitioner’s case by the DLC on the sole ground that the petitioner was not a party in the proceedings before the Co- ordinate Bench, will have the effect of the DLC regarding Clause No.1 in the OM dated 01.06.2015, when it had been set aside on 30.01.2023, Therefore, the benefit of the judgement cannot be withheld or curtailed in respect of any person who is similarly situated person as those writ petitioners like the present writ petitioner. The judgement as discussed above and the judgement of the Coordinate Bench do not restrict the benefits to be made available only to those petitioners before the Court. Therefore, the OM dated 01.06.2015 which is applicable to in cases of compassionate appointment with effect from the date of the judgement that is 30.01.2023 will have to be read as applicable to all similarly situated persons and Clause 1 thereof having been setting aside by the Co-ordinate Bench cannot be made applicable in respect of any other persons including the present writ petitioner. 7. This conclusion arrived at by the Co-ordinate Bench was affirmed by the Division Bench by the judgement and order dated 12.12.2025 passed in WA No.287/2023 and other analogous matters and the appeals preferred by the State came to be dismissed by concluding in the manner as reflected in the paragraphs extracted above. 8. In that view of the matter, this matter stands remanded back to the DLC for reconsideration of the case of the writ petitioner in terms of the judgement Page No.# 8/8 and order dated 30.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No.1646/2021 and thereafter, pass appropriate orders. Needless to say that while considering the case of the writ petitioner the position in law applicable for consideration of cases in respect of compassionate appointment should be fairly applied. 9. With the observations made above this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant