Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010286042025 2026:GAU-AS:1215 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/336/2026 DEEPJYOTI DEKA S/O- LATE BANGSHIDHAR DEKA, VILL- DEKARGAON, P.O.- BAROMPUR, DIST.- DARRANG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT,DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT DARRANG REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DARRANG MANGALDOI DIST- DARRANG ASSAM 5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS DARRANG DISTRICT CIRCLE Page No.# 2/11 MANGALDOI DIST- DARRANG ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MR M Z SHAH,MR M SHELIM Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, SEC. EDU. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 28.01.2026 Heard Mr. R Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U Sharma, learned Standing counsel, Department of Secondary Education, Assam appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, 3 & 5 and Mr. G Pegu, learned Government advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 & 4. 2. The petitioner, in the present proceedings, has assailed an order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of Assam rejecting the claim of the petitioner for placing his case before the State Level Committee for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. The father of the petitioner, while working as a Chowkidar (Grade IV employee) at Dekargaon M.E School, Dist-Darrang, died in harness on 11.11.2007. Pursuant to the death of his father, the mother of the petitioner Smti. Anupama Deka, submitted application for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The said claim made by the mother of the petitioner is not found Page No.# 3/11 to have not been diligently pursued by the mother of the petitioner and/or the family members of the petitioner. The petitioner, who was a minor at the time of the death of his father, after attaining the age of majority, had applied for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds on 23.02.2022. The application submitted by the petitioner came to be placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 23.03.2022. The jurisdictional District Level Committee, on consideration of the case of the petitioner, finding that the application was submitted in the matter by the petitioner, after a long lapse of time since the death of his father, proceeded to not recommend the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and required his application to be forwarded to the government for consideration. The application of the petitioner was, thereafter, placed before the State Level Committee and the State Level Committee, in its meeting held on 02.03.2023, rejected the same by noticing the delay occasioning in submission of the application by the petitioner. The said rejection by the State Level Committee was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C) No. 5108 of 2023. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 08.09.2023, disposed of the said writ petition by setting aside the decision of the State Level Committee as arrived in its meeting held on 02.03.2023 and required the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioner before the State Level Committee for a fresh consideration. Before the application of the petitioner could be placed before the State Level Committee for a fresh consideration, the respondent Page No.# 4/11 authorities had issued an OM dated 18.09.2024 towards reviewing the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds. On review of the said scheme, vide the said OM dated 18.09.2024, it was stipulated that the administrative departments would not place the applications for appointment on compassionate grounds before the jurisdictional District Level Committee and the constituted State Level Committee. The said development taking place, Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of Assam, vide a speaking order dated 30.11.2024, proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner basing on the said OM dated 18.09.2024 as well as appreciating the fact that the immediacy required to be followed for effecting appointments on compassionate grounds, in the case of the petitioner was lost and accordingly, the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had instituted the present proceeding. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials available on record. 5. The facts, as noticed hereinabove, are not disputed. The application submitted by the petitioner, although belatedly, was considered by the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 23.02.2022. On consideration of said application, no recommendation came to be made in favor of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate grounds. 6. The said jurisdictional District Level Committee, noticing the delay in the submission of the application by the petitioner, required Page No.# 5/11 the proposal to be forwarded to the government for consideration. There being no recommendation made by the jurisdictional District Level Committee, in respect of the claim made by the petitioner, for appointment on compassionate grounds, there was no occasion for the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioner before the State level Committee. However, for reasons not disclosed, the application submitted by the petitioner came to be placed before the State Level Committee. The State level Committee, in its meeting held on 02.03.2023, considered the application of the petitioner and rejected the same on account of the delay occasioning on the part of the petitioner in submitting his application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The said decision, however, was interfered with by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the proceedings of WP(C) No. 5108 of 2023. 7. The plea of the petitioner, in the present proceedings, is for a consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds, in pursuance to the death of his father occasioning on 11.11.2007. This Court finds that proximate to the time of death of his father, the mother of the petitioner had submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner and his family members are found to have not diligently followed the application submitted by the mother of the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground. The writ petitioner, in the writ petition has also not explained as to how the said application submitted by his mother proximate to the time death of his father was being pursued by his family. Accordingly, it is apparent on the face of the records that the Page No.# 6/11 petitioner and his family members were not pursuing the claim for appointment of member of the family on compassionate grounds. 8. In the present writ petition, the OM dated 18.09.2024 is not under challenge. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 342 of 2025 (Abdul Qudir Baksi Vs. State of Assam & Ors.) along with other analogous matters decided vide order dated 03.04.2025 would have no application in the present proceedings. 9. At this stage, 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 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 Page No.# 7/11 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 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 Page No.# 8/11 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 in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation, material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most 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 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 Page No.# 9/11 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 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." 10. 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 11.11.2007, the consideration that is now sought to be made in respect of the petitioner herein, for appointment on compassionate grounds is a consideration so Page No.# 10/11 required to be made after a lapse of around 18 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 and his family members were able to eke out a living even though none in the family was favored 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. Further, as noticed hereinabove, the family of the petitioners was also not diligent in pursuing the claim for appointment of one of its members on compassionate grounds although, an application was admittedly submitted by the mother of the petitioner for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate grounds, proximate to the time of death of the father of the petitioner and the same would also be a ground for denying issuance of any direction to the respondent authorities for consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. 11. In view of the 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 his father, in harness, occasioning on 11.11.2007. 12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is found to be devoid of any Page No.# 11/11 merit and the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant