Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010025992026 2026:GAU-AS:6844- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/155/2026 KABIR AHMED CHOUDHURY S/O- LATE SAMIR UDDIN CHOUDHURY, R/O- VILL- GONIRGRAM PT-IV, P.O. GONIRGRAM, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE CACHAR REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR P.O DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001. 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PHE SILCHAR DIVISION NO.1 SILCHAR P.O- SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F A LASKAR, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, P H E Page No.# 2/10 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 18.05.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. N.H. Barbhuyan, learned counsel for the appellant, who submits that the appellant’s prayer for compassionate appointment had been rejected by the learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order dated 07.01.2026 passed in WP(C) 6410/2025. He submits that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that the delay in considering the appellant's application for compassionate appointment had been made in violation of Clause-4 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 which mandated that the District Level Committee (DLC) was to meet once every two months, to consider applications for compassionate appointment. Further, the rejection of the appellant's application for compassionate appointment on the ground of lack of vacancy was not in accordance with Clause-15 of the O.M dated 01.06.2015 which required his case to be considered in respect of vacancies existing not only in his office but also in offices of other departments. Besides, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the case on grounds of delay without considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K., reported in 2025 SCC online, SC 290. 2. Mr. R. R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 3 and Mr. S. Barua, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submit that there is no infirmity with the decision of the learned Single Judge, inasmuch as, the earlier decision Page No.# 3/10 of the Supreme Court in the case of The State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Others, reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712, has clearly provided that compassion appointment cannot be claimed after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 3. The facts of the case in brief is that the appellant’s father had died-in- harness on 03.03.2017. The appellant thereafter applied for compassion appointment on 29.05.2017, during the time the appointment on compassionate basis was in force, in terms of the O.M dated 01.06.2015. The DLC, however, rejected the appellant’s application for compassionate appointment, on the ground that there was no vacancy available for accommodating the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition, WP(C) No.243/2020 and the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 10.08.2022 directed re- consideration of the appellant’s case in terms of paragraph 15 of the O.M dated 01.06.2015, which provided that if sufficient vacancies were not available in any particular Office, to accommodate the persons in the waiting list for compassionate appointment, it would be open to the Administrative Department/Office to take up the matter with other Departments/Offices of the Government to provide early appointment on compassionate ground to those in the waiting list. 4. The DLC thereafter re-considered the application of the appellant in it’s meeting held on 30.01.2024 and rejected the same on the ground that there was no vacancy. Page No.# 4/10 5. The Government of Assam thereafter issued Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 which barred consideration of compassionate appointment cases, where Government employees had died-in-harness prior to 31.03.2017. The appellant being aggrieved by the DLC decision dated 30.01.2024 rejecting his application for compassionate appointment, besides being aggrieved by the O.M dated 18.09.2024, filed WP(C) 690/2025. The learned Single Judge, vide a common judgment and order dated 03.04.2025 disposed WP(C) 690/2025 along with a number of other similar cases by way of a consent order, wherein all applications for compassionate appointment were to be considered on merit, by taking into consideration the various guidelines laid down by the Government for compassionate appointment and also by taking into account various decisions of the Supreme Court, including the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra). 6. The case of the petitioner was again taken up by the DLC, Cachar in it’s meeting held on 16.08.2025, wherein the DLC rejected the appellant’s application for compassionate appointment. The DLC meeting minutes dated 16.08.2025 rejected the appellant's case for compassionate appointment by also taking into account the fact that the case of the appellant for compassion appointment had been considered on two earlier occasions i.e., on 05.08.2017 and 30.01.2024. However, the name of the appellant was not recommended on the ground that there was no vacancy to accommodate the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant again approached the learned Single Judge by way of WP(C) 6410/2025, challenging the rejection of his application for compassion appointment in the meeting minutes of the DLC held on 16.08.2025. Page No.# 5/10 7. The learned Single Judge disposed of WP(C) 6410/2025, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 07.01.2026, by referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra). The learned Single Judge held that as nothing had been brought out before the Court, showing that there was any illegality in the rejection of the petitioner’s application, no ground for interference with the decision of the respondents had been made out. 8. Aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court. 9. We have noticed the decision relied upon by the appellant in Canara Bank (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that lapse of time could be a major factor for denying compassionate appointment, where the claim is lodged belatedly. If any time limit has been prescribed for making application and the claimant applies within such period, lapse of time cannot be assigned as a ground for rejection. Canara Bank (supra) has not only decided the issue with regard to lapse of time, it has also decided issues pertaining to the objectives sought to be achieved by offering compassionate appointment, wherein it has held that examination of the financial condition of a candidate is to be considered only in “hand-to-mouth” cases, if at all other conditions are satisfied. Canara Bank (supra) also decided the issues with regard to whether there has been a proper and reasonable assessment of the financial condition of the family consequent upon the death of the breadwinner. It also looked into the issue of age relaxation. All these issues were in relation to the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground contained in the Circular No. 154/1993 dated 08.05.1993. Canara Bank (supra) also discussed various Page No.# 6/10 contradictory decisions made by the Supreme Court, with regard to the question as to which Rule/Policy/Scheme would be applicable for consideration of an application for compassionate appointment, i.e, the Rule/Policy/Scheme prevailing on the date of death or the date of consideration of the application. After discussing the issue at length, Canara Bank (supra) finally zeroed in on two decisions of the Supreme Court rendered by Three Judge Benches. In the case of N. C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617, the Supreme Court held that for consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment, the norms prevailing on the date the application is considered should be the basis for consideration. On the other hand, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Amit Shrivas, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 496, it held that the policy existing on the date of the demise should be the basis for consideration, unless a subsequent policy was made applicable retrospectively. We have noticed that in the case of Canara Bank (supra), the Supreme Court did not consider the decision in Debabrata Tiwari (supra), which has held in Para 7.5, 32 and 33 as follows: “7.5 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 Page No.# 7/10 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 dependants 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.” “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 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 Page No.# 8/10 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 the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration.” 10. In the present case, no doubt the appellant had applied for compassionate appointment within the specified time limit. However, appellant’s application has been rejected by the DLC due to lack of vacancy on 05.08.2017, 30.01.2024 and 16.08.2025, two of them on the back of the directions passed in two different writ petitions. As such, the issue of noncompliance with Clause 4 of the O.M dated 01.06.2015 does not arise at this stage. As such, it cannot be said that the appellant's application has not been considered in the proper Page No.# 9/10 perspective. An application for compassionate appointment which has been rejected, cannot remain valid for all the times to come until the same is accepted by the concerned authority. Finality to an issue has to come about. 11. In the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) the Supreme Court has held that compassionate employment cannot be claimed after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over, as it is only to mitigate the immediate hardship that befalls the family, due to the death of the bread-winner. Further, in a case of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant or the authorities in deciding a claim for compassionate appointment, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. The Supreme Court further held that in such cases, Courts or other 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 source or the other. Granting a compassionate appointment in such a case would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it was a matter of inheritance based on the line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. It thus held that a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the Government servant. In the present case, more than 9 years have elapsed from the date of the death of the Government servant and it can be said that the appellant and his family have been able to survive the immediate hardship caused to the family due to the death of the head of the family. As such, the immediate requirement of being appointed on compassionate basis is now lost. Besides the above, there is nothing to show that there is any illegality in the rejection of the appellant’s application due to lack of vacancy, as has been held by the DLC in it’s meeting Page No.# 10/10 minutes dated 16.08.2025. 12. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant