Page No.# 1/13 GAHC010020462026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1284/2026 ABDUL KADIR BOKSHI SON OF LATE ABDUL NOOR BOKSHI, VILLAGE BHATIRKUPA PT I, MATIRGRAM, ALGAPUR, HAILAKANDI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM PERSONNEL B DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 3:THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM PERSONNEL B DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE CACHAR REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM 5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS Page No.# 2/13 CDC SILCHAR CACHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F A LASKAR, MR A MALEK Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, SEC. EDU. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 28-04-2026 Heard Mr. F.A. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Das, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 5 and Ms. K. Phukan, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2. The petitioner in the present proceeding has presented a challenge to a resolution adopted by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC) in its meeting held on 16-08- 2025, towards rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that the application as submitted by the petitioner for the purpose had lost its force in terms of the scheme in place. 3. The father of the petitioner late Abdul Noor Bokshi, while working as Assistant Teacher of Bikrampur Senior Madrassa, Bhangarpar in the district of Cachar had died-in- harness on 14-05-2009. Pursuant to the death of the father of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner on 23-05-2009, had submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, it is projected that her said application was not Page No.# 3/13 considered. The petitioner on attaining the age of majority submitted an application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The said application not being considered, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6733/2023. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22-11-2023, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction upon the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioner before the jurisdictional DLC for consideration. The application submitted by the petitioner was considered by the jurisdictional DLC in its meeting held on 30-01-2024, however, the application of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that there was no vacant post available within the 5% quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is to be noted that the jurisdictional DLC had considered the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in the parent office as well as in other offices. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for appointment on compassionate grounds again approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 342/2025. In the said proceedings an office memorandum dated 18-09-2024, by which it was informed that the cases for appointment on compassionate grounds of family members of Government servants who had died-in- harness prior to 31-03-2017, would not be entertained by the Administrative Department/ Authority for any reason whatsoever nor be placed before the constituted committee for consideration, was also assailed. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03-04- 2025, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition along with other analogous matters by directing that the applications of the petitioners, therein, shall be considered by the Page No.# 4/13 constituted committee, by taking into consideration various guidelines issued prior to 01- 04-2017, for consideration of cases of applicants for appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, the application submitted by the petitioner was again placed before the jurisdictional DLC in its meeting held on 16-08-2025. The Committee upon considering the applications submitted by the petitioner proceeded to reject the same by holding that the same had spent its force as per Principle No. 10 of the OM dated 01-06-2015. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 5. Mr. F.A. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was admittedly not considered by the jurisdictional DLC by following the procedure mandated in this connection. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by the provisions of the OM dated 01-06-2015 and accordingly, a consideration, thereon, was mandated to be so made on merits, which, however, was not so done in his case. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the petitioner had submitted his application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 22-05-2017. At the relevant point of time, it was the provision of the OM dated 01-06- 2015 that was holding the field. The application of the petitioner was considered by the jurisdictional DLC in its meeting held on 30-01-2024, but on account of absence of vacancies within the quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds, his case was not recommended. It is submitted that in pursuance to the direction passed by this Court vide order dated 03-04-2025 in W.P.(C) No. 342/2025, the application of the Page No.# 5/13 petitioner was again considered, however, the Committee having found that the application submitted by the petitioner having remained pending for a period more than 02 years, following the prescription so laid down in Principle 10 of the OM dated 01-06- 2015, the application submitted by the petitioner came to be rejected on having spent its force. It is submitted that the jurisdictional DLC in rejecting the application of the petitioner had strictly followed the mandate of the scheme in vogue at the relevant point of time when the application was so submitted by the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, it is submitted that the said decision of the Committee would not mandate interference by this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 8. The facts noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute. The petitioner had submitted an application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds on 22-05-2017. As noticed, hereinabove, in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court in the proceeding of W.P.(C) No. 6733/2023, the jurisdictional DLC in its meeting held on 30-01-2024 had taken up the same for consideration, however, there being no vacancy available in the establishments under the control of the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools and also in other Government offices in the district, the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner had assailed such rejection before this Court by way of instituting W.P.(C) No. 342/2025. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 03- 04-2025, had disposed of the said writ petition. The operative portion of the said order Page No.# 6/13 being relevant is extracted, here-in-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. On perusal of the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 03-04-2025, it would be revealed that the Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed the application of the petitioner to be considered and disposed of by the Constituted Committee on merit by taking into consideration the various guidelines in vogue prior to 01-04-2017 for Page No.# 7/13 appointment on compassionate grounds as well as the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court holding the field. It is to be noted that in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674 had laid down the following principles with regard to consideration of all applications for appointment on compassionate grounds. “I. All pending applications against existing and available vacancies as per the quota earmarked including the cases of the petitioners in the present cases and all others, who may not be before the court, shall be decided in accordance with the proposed directions to be laid down in the present order and also in accordance with the principles noted in the preceding paragraphs of this order. This will be done within a period of 4 (four) months from today. The present direction naturally has to be considered as a one-time measure in view of the subsequent direction as laid down in the succeeding paragraphs. II. The District Head of each Department will intimate the vacancies as and when such vacancies occur, to the Court Appointed District Level Committees for its scrutiny. There will be no delay in such intimation. III. The District Level Committee will be constituted by the Deputy commissioner of the District and the Superintendent of Police. The deputy Commissioner himself will sit in the Committee. The district Head (s) of such departments in which vacancies are available shall be co-opted as the additional Members of the Committee. IV. The District Level Committee will meet once every 2 (two)months on the last Saturday of the second month. V. The District Level Committee will decide as to who amongst the eligible candidates is entitled to compassionate appointment. To the extent possible such amongst the eligible appointments will be recommended to be made within the District. In making the recommendations for appointments, the District Level committee will take into account the financial condition of the family of the deceased and on a relative consideration of the cases will make its recommendation. There will be no selection and "seniority of the claim" will not be resorted to unless two or more eligible candidates are at par. VI. To decide on the question of financial status of the family of a claimant regard will be had to the following factors as laid down in G. M. Vs. Kunti Tiwari (supra) (a) Gratuity amount received/receivable. (b) Family pension payable. (c) Provident Fund Amount received/receivable. (d) Any ex-gratia payment made or payable. (e) Proceeds of LIC Policy and other investments of the deceased. (f) Income of the family from other sources. (g) Employment of other family members. (h) Size of Page No.# 8/13 the family and liabilities, if any. VII. The recommendations of the District Level Committee will be considered by a State Level Committee consisting of the Chief secretary and the Senior Financial Commissioner of the State. The Commissioner and Secretary of the Department (s) in which vacancies are available will be coopted as Additional Members of the State Level Committee. VIII. The State Level Committee will meet once every 3 (three) months. IX. All vacancies available against the quota of compassionate appointment must be filled up within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of occurrence of the vacancy in accordance with the present directions. X. If the applications of eligible candidates remain pending and cannot be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of 2 (two)years from the date of making such applications, all such applications will require no further consideration and must be understood to have spent their force.” 11. Principle ‘X’, has noticed hereinabove would stand attracted to the case of the petitioner, herein. The said principle mandates that in terms of the said principle ‘X’ laid down by this Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra), if an application submitted by an eligible candidate remains pending and cannot be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of 02 (two) years from the date of making such application, such application would not require further consideration and must be understood to have spent its force. The principles laid down in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra) were also incorporated in an OM dated 01-06-2015 issued by the Government of Assam in connection with consideration of applications for appointment on compassionate grounds. 12. The petitioner had admittedly submitted his application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 22-05-2017 and the same was considered by the jurisdictional DLC in its meeting held on 30-01-2024 and the case of the petitioner was not Page No.# 9/13 recommended on the ground that there was no vacant post available for extending a consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds in his case. The said decision as arrived at by the jurisdictional DLC in its meeting held on 30-01-2024 would reveal that the ground on which the application of the petitioner was rejected was that there was no vacant post available for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner. After the said consideration was so made, considering the fact that the application of the petitioner was submitted on 22-05-2017 by complying Principle ‘X’ as laid down by this Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra), it is found that more than 02 (two) years have lapsed since the date of submission of application by the petitioner in the matter and accordingly, the same is to be held to have spent its force. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the rejection of the application of the petitioner by the jurisdictional DLC in its meeting held on 16-08-2025, on the ground that is has spent its force, being so done by following the decision of this Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra) as well as the provisions of the OM dated 01-06-2015, would not call for any interference by this Court. 13. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now consider as to whether it would be permissible to direct the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds at this stage. As noticed, hereinabove, the father of the petitioner had died-in-harness on 14-05-2009, more than 17 years have lapsed since the date of death of his father and accordingly, the claim made by the petitioner for being considered for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rendered to be a stale one. Page No.# 10/13 14. At this stage, decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of State of W.B. 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 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 Page No.# 11/13 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 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, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation, in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would 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 length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during 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 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 Page No.# 12/13 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.” 15. Applying the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (Supra) to the facts of the present case, it is seen that the father of the petitioner had expired on 14-05-2009. The consideration that is now sought to be made in respect of the petitioner herein, for appointment on compassionate grounds is a consideration so required to be made after a lapse of around 17 years. The sense of immediacy in the matter of compassionate appointment in respect of the petitioner has been lost. Such delay is attributable to both the authorities of the State as well as the petitioner; however, entertaining the claim at this point of time would be of no avail, because, admittedly, the petitioner has been able to eke out a living even though he was not 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 for appointment on compassionate grounds. 16. In view of the foregoing discussions and conclusions reached herein above by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the issue involved in the present Page No.# 13/13 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 2009. 17. In view of the above, this Court having concluded that the claim of the petitioner for considering his case for appointment on compassionate grounds, on account of delay so occasioning in the matter, having been rendered to be a stale one, no direction in this connection would be called to be issued. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant