Page No.# 1/10 GAHC020003762025 2026:GAU-NL:42-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WA/11/2025 STATE OF NAGALAND AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED THROUGH THE HOME COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF NAGALAND, HOME DEPT. NAGALAND, KOHIMA 2: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NAGALAND KOHIMA 3: THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADM) NAGALAND KOHIM VERSUS MOHAMMED ABDUL HAFIZ CHOUDHURY S/O LATE MD. ABDUL RAHIM CHOUDHURY, R/O OLD MINISTERS HILL, KOHIMA NAGALAND-797001 Advocate for the Petitioner : N. LONGKUMER, KIM PIENYU,REBECCA,LUCY WEO Advocate for the Respondent : MOA JAMIR, K SHIJOH,GRACE I NAMGI,IMTI CHANG,ROSEMARY KIKON,SHISA JAMIR,T.METSIEO,THEJANUO METHA,R MERE,Y HUMTSOE Page No.# 2/10 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER O R D E R 04.02.2026 (Y. Lkr, J) Heard learned counsel, Mr. N. Longkumer for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner. 2. The instant intra-court writ appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the Order dated 12.11.2024, passed in WP(C)/141/2020. 3. The facts of the case in brief is that the father of the writ petitioner in WP(C)/141/2020 passed away while serving as Naik under DEF, Mokokchung under the police department on 12.01.2008, leaving behind the writ petitioner, his mother and his siblings. 4. After the demise of his father the respondent/writ petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground, in terms of the Office Memorandum No. AR-8/8/78, dated 16.01.2012. However, the application was not considered and, therefore, the petitioner approached the writ court by filing WP(C)/34(K)/2017. The writ petition was disposed of by an Order dated 06.04.2017 directing the State respondents/appellants to appoint the writ petitioner to any job in which he is eligible or suitable as per the aforementioned Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2012. 5. As the respondent authorities failed to take any positive action, the writ petitioner again approached the writ court by filing Page No.# 3/10 WP(C)/291(K)/2017. The learned Single Judge, by Order dated 16.08.2018, disposed of the writ petition directing the State authorities to appoint the writ petitioner to one of the vacant post of Constable, which is available and which falls under the quota for compassionate appointment and if not, to appoint him as soon as vacancy arises for that category. 6. Due to non-compliance of the Order dated 16.08.2018, passed in WP(C)/291(K)/2017, the writ petitioner filed a contempt petition, being COP(C)/33/2019. However, since no timeline had been provided by the writ court in the Order dated 15.08.2018, the contempt petition was closed by an order dated 02.12.2019. 7. Thereafter, the writ petitioner again approached the writ court by filing WP(C)/141/2020 praying for appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the Office Memorandum No. AR-8/8/78, dated 17.09.2015, and also prayed for setting aside the Letter dated 16.08.2021, by which the State respondents had expressed their inability to consider him for appointment in view of the existence of Office Memorandum dated 19.04.1983. The present appellants/respondents filed their affidavit-in- opposition in WP(C)/141/2020 stating that the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015 has to be read along with Office Memorandum dated 19.04.1983 since the petitioner is a non-local and he does not possess any technical qualification. In terms of the Office Memorandum dated 19.04.1983, 100% of Grade-III and IV posts are reserved for indigenous inhabitants of Nagaland and non-locals are eligible only for appointment against 20% of the vacancies in gazetted technical posts. It was contended by the present appellants that the petitioner being a non-local Page No.# 4/10 and not possessing any technical qualifications was not eligible to be considered for appointment to Grade-III and IV posts. 8. After hearing the parties, WP(C)/141(K)/2020 was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by Order dated 12.11.2024, directing the respondents/appellants to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified true copy of the Order as directed in the Judgment and Order dated 16.08.2018, passed in WP(C)/291(K)/2017, as the same had attained finality. The learned Single Judge held that as per the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015, the person seeking employment should be eligible and qualified in all respects under the provisions of the relevant recruitment rules and that the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015 cannot be restricted by the Office Memorandum dated 19.04.1983. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by holding that the petitioner is eligible to be considered for appointment in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015 and relaxed the upper age limit of the petitioner as he had become over-aged for public employment. 9. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2024, passed in WP(C)/141/2020, the instant writ appeal has been preferred by the appellants/respondents on the ground that the appointments on compassionate ground are to be made only against the Grade-III and IV posts and in terms of the Office Memorandum of the Government of Nagaland dated 19.04.1983, all appointments to Grade-III and IV posts are 100% reserved for indigenous inhabitants of Nagaland, and that the Office Memorandum in respect of the compassionate Page No.# 5/10 appointments and the Office Memorandum dated 19.04.1983 have to be read together. 10. Another ground taken by the appellants/respondents is that the Office Memoranda dated 16.01.2012 and 17.09.2015 provide that the applicants under the scheme of compassionate appointment should be eligible and qualified in all respects under the provisions of the relevant recruitment rules and since the Office Memorandum dated 19.04.1983 mandates that recruitment to Grade-III and IV posts be made only from the indigenous inhabitants of Nagaland, the learned single judge could not have directed the appellants to appoint the respondent/writ petitioner, who admittedly was not a indigenous inhabitant of the State. 11. The appellants herein have also taken the ground that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the scheme for compassionate appointment is to give immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased Government servant. The writ petitioner’s father died on 12.01.2008 and the writ petitioner/respondent has been able to sustain himself for more than 15 years without any assistance from the Government. And hence the scheme of compassionate appointment was no longer applicable to him. 12. Learned counsel, Mr. N. Longkumer appearing for the appellants has relied on the aforementioned grounds and has further submitted that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that the law is settled that compassionate appointment is meant to help the family of the deceased to tide over the urgent financial crisis Page No.# 6/10 which may arise due to the demise of the bread earner of the family. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed that the impugned Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2024, passed in WP(C)/141/2020 may be set aside. 13. Learned counsel, Mr. Moa Jamir appearing for the respondent/petitioner has contended that there is no dispute that the petitioner’s father had died in harness and that the writ petitioner was eligible to be appointed on compassionate ground. He has also submitted that in WP(C)/291(K)/2017, the learned Government Advocate had submitted a letter written to him by the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Government of Nagaland before the Court, wherein it was clearly stated that the petitioner is entitled to be in the waiting list for compassionate appointment and that there are six posts of Constables lying vacant at that point of time. Basing on such submission made by the learned Government Advocate, the writ court disposed of WP(C)/291(K)/2017 by the Judgment and Order dated 16.08.2018 thereby holding that the petitioner is eligible for appointment on compassionate ground under the die in harness scheme and further directed the State respondents to appoint him to one of the vacant posts of Constable indicated in the letter, if it falls under the quota of compassionate appointment and, if not, to appoint him as soon as vacancy arises for that category. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the appellants/State respondents had themselves admitted before the writ court that the writ petitioner was eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and, therefore, the writ petitioner had a legitimate expectation to be appointed on compassionate ground. Learned counsel further submits that the appellants herein cannot be allowed to backtrack Page No.# 7/10 on their own submissions made before the writ court. 14. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent has also submitted that the Office Memorandum dated 19.04.1983 is a general notification whereas the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015 is a notification specifically for compassionate appointment and, therefore, such scheme for compassionate appointment cannot be restrained by a general notification such as the Office Memorandum dated 19.04.1983. 15. Learned counsel further submits that the Office Memorandum dated 19.04.1983 was in existence when the writ court disposed of the second writ petition by Judgment and Order dated 16.08.2018. However, the appellants/State respondents did not raise the issue regarding the Office Memorandum dated 19.04.1983 when the second writ petition was heard. It was only when WP(C)/141/2020 was filed that the appellants have raised the issue of non-eligibility of the writ petitioner in view of the Office Memorandum dated 19.04.1983 and, therefore, the appellants should not be allowed to change their stand at different points of time before the Court in a matter relating to the same issue. The learned counsel submits that the present writ appeal is devoid of merit and, prays that the same may be dismissed. 16. We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the opposing counsels and have also perused the pleadings and the records available before the Court. The law is settled that compassionate appointment is not a vested right. A scheme for compassionate appointment is framed by the State to see that the dependents of the Page No.# 8/10 deceased government employee are not deprived of the means of livelihood due to the demise of the employee immediately after the death. Having regard to the object behind framing a scheme for compassionate appointment, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employee, after the financial crisis has been overcome. In a case like the present one, when there has been prolonged delay either on the part of the writ petitioner claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted. 17. In the case of State of West Bengal Versus Debabrata Tiwari and Others reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: “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 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 bread-winner, 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 dependants of the deceased employee being employed on compassionate grounds. The financial condition of the family Page No.# 9/10 of the deceased, at the time of the death of the deceased, is the primary 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.” 17. Applying the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Debabrata Tiwari (Supra), to the facts in the present case, we are of the view that when the writ petition, WP(C)/141/2020 was considered by the learned Single Judge it had already been 15 (fifteen) years since the death of the writ petitioner’s father. During the past 15 years, the writ petitioner and his family had been able to sustain themselves. The Apex Court has clearly stated in Debabrata Tiwari (Supra) that the object behind compassionate appointment 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. We are of the view that after 15 years, it cannot be said that the immediate crisis, which arose on account of the death of the petitioner’s father was still a factor to be considered. The very fact that Page No.# 10/10 the writ petitioner’s family had been able to sustain themselves for 15 years indicates that the financial condition of the family had changed since the time of the death of the petitioner’s father. 18. In view of the observations made above, and after considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that a writ of mandamus could not have been issued in WP(C)/141/2020 to grant compassionate appointment as a matter of right. Specially in a case such as the present one wherein the government employee had died in the year 2008 and the writ petition was being considered in the year 2024, as there was no statutory duty which the appellant authorities had failed to perform and for this reason, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2024, passed in WP(C)/141/2020 is quashed and set aside. Writ appeal is allowed and disposed of. No order as to cost. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant