Page No.# 1/17 GAHC010168242021 2026:GAU-AS:7893 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5674/2021 SMTI. SUMITA RUDRA PAUL @ SUMITA RUDRA PAUL (TALUKDAR) W/O LATE PINU TALUKDAR, R/O GACH KALIBARI ROAD, P.O. AND P.S.- KARIMGANJ, DIST- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN-788710 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND D.M (LR) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-06 2:OFFICE OF THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER KARIMGANJ DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788710 3:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASIONATE APPOINTMENT (REVENUE AND D.M (LR) DEPARTMENT) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY-06 4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPAASIONATE APPOINTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-78871 Page No.# 2/17 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. M H CHOUDHURY, MR. P CHAKRABORTY,MR. V ACHUMI,MR MONZUR K CHOUDHURY,MRS. L N CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 04.06.2026 Heard Mr. M K Choudhury, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Ms. M Bhattacharjee, Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has prayed for direction upon the Respondent authorities, to set-aside the decision, arrived at, in respect of the claim of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by the State Level Committee, in its meeting held on 27.11.2020. The Petitioner has made a further prayer for a direction upon the Respondent authorities to consider her case for a fresh appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. As projected in the Writ Petition, the husband of the Petitioner Sri. Pinu Talukdar, while working as a Chain man, in Page No.# 3/17 the establishment of the Settlement Officer, had died in harness on 13.01.2017. The Petitioner, proximate to the time of death of her husband, had submitted applications before the competent authority of the Department, for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground. The applications, submitted by the Petitioner, are found to have been placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee, in its meeting held on 17.07.2017. The jurisdictional District Level Committee, after considering the said applications submitted by the Petitioner, and on verification of the particulars, therein, recommended the claim of the Petitioner for appointment against the vacant post of Chain-Man/Grade-IV post, available during the year 2017. The case of the Petitioner was again placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee, in its meeting held on 16.12.2019, inasmuch as, the Settlement Officer, Karimganj, had submitted that certain obligatory information like financial status, vacancy position, as per the guidelines for appointment against 5% quota for compassionate grounds, was not placed. Further it was projected that there was a discrepancy in the name of the husband of the Petitioner. The Page No.# 4/17 jurisdictional District Level Committee, again examined the matter and on rectifying the deficiencies noticed, proceeded to recommend the case of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and required submission of a proposal before the State Level Committee. The Petitioner’s case was, thereafter, placed before the State Level Committee, in its meeting held on 27.11.2020. The said Committee, on examining the case of the Petitioner, in the light of the recommendations made in her favour by the jurisdictional District Level Committee, proceeded to reject the claim of the Petitioner by holding that 2 (Two), posts identified for appointment on compassionate grounds, within the 5% quota of the cadre strength, permissible for appointment on compassionate grounds, were already filled up. The Petitioner being aggrieved had instituted the present Writ Petition. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, emphasized that the financial condition of the Petitioner’s family has deteriorated further since Page No.# 5/17 the death of the only bread-earner in the family i.e. the husband of the Petitioner, herein. Accordingly, he submits that the Petitioner, even as on date, is in need of an appointment, on compassionate grounds, so as to lead a dignified life. 5. Per contra, Ms. M Bhattacharjee, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, by OM dated 01.06.2015, has submitted that the applications submitted by the Petitioner, without the same being translated into an appointment on compassionate grounds, for more than 2 (two) years, in terms of the principles laid down by this Court, in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674. And further, in terms of the provisions of OM dated 01.06.2015, the case of the Petitioner would not mandate a further consideration. She submits that although the recommendations were made by the jurisdictional District Level Committee, such recommendations were not made along with the identification of the post against which the Petitioner could have been so appointed. The identified vacant posts within the 5% quota prescribed for appointment on compassionate grounds, having been already utilized by appointing persons on compassionate Page No.# 6/17 grounds earlier, there being no further vacancies available, the case of the Petitioner was rightly rejected by the State Level Committee. She submits that considering the long lapse of time, occasioning in the matter, after the death of the husband of the Petitioner, the following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. reported in 2025 (5) SCC 712, a direction for fresh considering of the case of the Petitioner, would not be mandated to be issued by this Court. 6. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. It is seen that the Petitioner pursuant to the death of the husband which had occasioned on 13.01.2017, had submitted an application for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The application submitted by the Petitioner was considered by the jurisdictional District Level Committee, in its meeting held on 17.07.2017. 8. This Court, on perusal of the recommendation made by the jurisdictional District Level Committee, in favour of the Page No.# 7/17 Petitioner, does not find that the said recommendation, was made against a specific identified vacant posts within the 5% quota, mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds. After the said aspect of the matter was again highlighted by the departmental authority before the jurisdictional District Level Committee, the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its, subsequent meeting held on 16.12.2019, had again considered the application submitted by the petitioner and on such consideration, had again proceeded to recommend her name for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, this Court finds that even in the second round of consideration of the claim of the Petitioner, herein, no vacant post was identified for the purpose of appointment of the Petitioner within the 5% of the quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds. 9. This Court has thereafter, perused the minutes of the meeting of the State Level Selection Committee, held on 27.11.2020, and on a perusal of the conclusions reached by it, with regard to the claims of the Petitioner, this Court finds that the rejection of the claim of the Petitioner was on the ground that 2 (two) posts, which were identified for appointment on Page No.# 8/17 compassionate grounds in the establishment concerned, were already filled up by appointing persons, found eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds and there was no further vacant posts within the 5% quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds. This Court on a perusal of the said conclusions drawn by the State Level Committee, finds the same to be not erroneous. Further, the Petitioner has not brought on record, any material to dispute the conclusions reached by the State Level Committee, in the matter. 10. Accordingly, the decision arrived at by the State Level Committee, in the considered view of this Court, would not mandate any interference. 11. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would consider the prayer of the Petitioner, that a direction be issued upon the Respondent authorities for fresh consideration for her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. As noticed, hereinabove, the husband of the Petitioner had died in harness on 13.01.2017. Around more than 9 (nine) years have lapsed since the date of death of the husband of the Petitioner. Although the petitioner had submitted her application proximate to the time of Page No.# 9/17 death of her husband, the case of the petitioner was placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 17.07.2017. However, it is seen that no recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner in this connection and the matter was forwarded to the Government for necessary approval. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was placed before the SLC in its meeting held on 27.11.2020 and again in absence of any vacancy within the 5% quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds being found to exist in the department, no recommendation, favourable to the petitioner, came to be made by the State Level Committee. However, the State Level Committee directed the establishment, i.e. establishment of the Settlement Officer, to ascertain availability of suitable vacancies according to qualification of the Petitioner and revert back to the Committee with the vacancy status for further consideration. It is at this stage, the respondent authorities had issued the OM dated 01.06.2015, by which the scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds was withdrawn and it was provided that no application for appointment on compassionate grounds shall be considered and/or placed before the constituted State Level Page No.# 10/17 Committee and/or the jurisdictional District Level Committee. The petitioner projects in the present writ petition that she was denied of a due consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate grounds and accordingly, submits that in spite of the delay occasioning in the matter, respondents are required to be directed to consider her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner in this connection has relied upon the order dated 03-04-2025, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 342/2025 (Abdul Qudir Baksi Vs. State of Assam &Ors.). This Court has perused the order dated 03-04-2025 and finds that in the said cases, challenge was to the OM dated 01.06.2015. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, appreciating the concession made by the Government before it to the effect that all cases pending before the Court challenging the impugned OM dated 01.06.2015, shall be considered by the concerned authorities on merit, proceeded to pass the following directions: “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 Page No.# 11/17 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 receiptof 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.” 12. A perusal of the direction passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 03-04-2025, would reveal that the same is limited only to the writ petition pending before this Court, wherein, the challenge is to the OM dated 01.06.2015. Accordingly, in the present proceeding the OM dated 01.06.2015, being not under challenge, the said direction passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 03-04-2025, cannot be extended to the petitioner, herein. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would refer to the decision in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674, while laying down the principles required to be followed for consideration of claims relating to compassionate appointment had laid down that if the application Page No.# 12/17 of eligible candidates remained pending and cannot be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of 2 (two) years from the date of making of such application, all such applications would require no further consideration. The State Level Committee, in its meeting held on 27.11.2020, having rejected the case of the petitioner, admittedly, on absence of vacant post available for appointing the petitioner on compassionate grounds, the application of the petitioner must be held to have lost its force within 2 (two) years, thereafter. The said prescription, as made in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra), was reiterated by this Court in the case of Fazirul Nessa & Ors. Vs State of Assam & Ors., reported in (2010) 4 GLT 340. 13. At this stage, decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Debabrata Tiwari (Supra) 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 Page No.# 13/17 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 Page No.# 14/17 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 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, Page No.# 15/17 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. NandlalJaiswal, (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 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 JagdishLal 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 Page No.# 16/17 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.” 14. 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 husband of the petitioner had died in harness on 13.01.2017. 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 09 (Nine) 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 she 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. Page No.# 17/17 15. 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 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 her husband, in harness, occasioning in the year 2017. 16. In view of the above, this Court having concluded that the scheme 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. 17. 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