Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010158002023 2026:GAU-AS:8230 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4241/2023 MAHMUD HASSAN LASKAR S/O- LATE NURUL ALAM LASKAR, VILLAGE- GOSSAIPUR PAT-III, P..- GOSSAIPUR PART-III, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC) REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR ASSAM SILCHAR. 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER UDHARBOND REVENUE CIRCLE P.O.- UDHARBOND DISTRICT- CACHAR Page No.# 2/10 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J M A CHOUDHURY, MR. A B T HAQUE Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 10.06.2026 Heard Mr. J M A Choudhury, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Ms. D D Barman, Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the State Respondents. 2. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition has assailed the decision of the State Level Committee, constituted for considering the cases of the Applicants for appointment on compassionate grounds, in rejecting his case for appointment on compassionate grounds, on the ground that the Petitioner was less than 18 (Eighteen) years of age, at the time he had submitted his application for being considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the Respondents, for a fresh consideration of his case, for appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. The father of the Petitioner Sri. Nurul Alam Laskar, while working as a Junior Assistant in the establishment of the Circle Officer, Udharbond Revenue Page No.# 3/10 Circle, Cachar, Assam, had died in harness on 24.02.2010. It is projected that proximate to the time of death of his father, the mother of the Petitioner had submitted an application before the Respondent authorities for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Petitioner, who was a minor at the time of death of his father, after attaining majority, had submitted a fresh application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds, on 07.01.2019. 4. The application, submitted by the Petitioner, was considered by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC) on 28.06.2021. However, the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), finding that there was no vacancy within the 5% quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds, proceeded to request the Deputy Director, Town & Country Planning, Assam, to forward the proposal of the Petitioner to the State Level Committee. The application of the Petitioner, not being considered, the Petitioner had approached this Court by way of instituting a Writ Petition, being WP(C) No. 5370/2021. 5. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 07.10.2021, noticing the decision arrived at by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), in its meeting held on 28.06.2021, pertaining to the claim of the Petitioner, Page No.# 4/10 permitted the Petitioner to withdraw the said Writ Petition, to move before the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, by way of submitting a representation. Accordingly, the said Writ Petition came to be withdrawn, with liberty to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar. The application submitted by the Petitioner, was again placed before the District Level Committee in its meeting held on 02.02.2022. The District Level Committee, on consideration of the application submitted by the Petitioner, finding that there was no vacancy against which, case of the Petitioner can be recommended for appointment on compassionate grounds, required the authorities to consider the case of the Petitioner, in terms of Clause 15 of the OM dated 01.06.2015, i.e. against any other vacancy existing in any other Department. The application submitted by the Petitioner was, thereafter, placed before the State Level Committee, in its meeting held on 16.08.2022 and the State Level Committee, on consideration of the application submitted by the Petitioner, proceeded to reject the same, holding that he was less than 18 (Eighteen) years of age, on the date of submission of the application. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of instituting the present Writ Petition. 6. Mr. J M A Choudhury, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, by reiterating Page No.# 5/10 the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that a perusal of the minutes of the meetings of the District Level Committee, as well as, the State Level Committee, would go to reveal that there was no consideration of the application submitted by the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, on its merits. He submits that the constituted Committees had only rejected his case on the ground that there was no vacancy available within the 5% quota, in the establishment, wherein, the father of the Petitioner had so served. 7. Mr. J M A Choudhury, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that the financial condition of the family of the Petitioner has further deteriorated over the period of time and although, a long lapse of time had occasioned since the death of the Government Servant involved, the necessity of having one of the members of the family of the deceased Government Servant, appointed on compassionate grounds, still exists. Accordingly, he submits that a direction be issued upon the Respondent authorities, to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds, against any vacancy, commensurating to his educational qualification. 8. Per contra, Ms. D D Barman, Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the State Respondents, has submitted that the Page No.# 6/10 application, submitted by the Petitioner on 07.01.2019, was duly considered by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC). However, a positive recommendation, in respect of the Petitioner, could not be preferred, in view of the fact that there was no vacancy within the 5% quota, mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds. She submits that even if the delay in submission of application by the Petitioner is ignored, the application submitted by the Petitioner, having remained without it being taken to its logical conclusion, w.e.f the date it was so submitted, in terms of the decision of this Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. Vs. The State of Assam & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 GLT 674, no further consideration would be mandated to be extended to the said application submitted by the Petitioner. She submits that in view of the fact that the father of the Petitioner had died in harness on 24.02.2010, after 16 (Sixteen) years there would arise no occasion for this Court to pass directions upon the Respondent authorities, for consideration of the case of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. 9. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. The facts noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute. Page No.# 7/10 11. From the materials brought on record in the present Writ Petition, this Court finds that proximate to the time of death of the father of the Petitioner, his mother had submitted an application praying for appointment on compassionate grounds. The said application submitted by the mother of the Petitioner was not pursued by the mother of the Petitioner and/or the family members of the Petitioner. The Petitioner projects that he was a minor at the time of death of his father and on attaining majority, he had submitted an application on 07.01.2019, i.e. after about 9 (Nine) years from the date of death of the Government Servant involved. The delay of 9 (Nine) years in submission of an application by itself, would be ground to reject the application submitted by the Petitioner, in the matter. The family of the Petitioner having sustained for 9 (Nine) years, i.e. till the date the Petitioner had submitted the application for appointment on compassionate grounds, there would arise no further occasion for consideration of such application submitted by the Petitioner. However, the application of the Petitioner was found to have been considered by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC). The jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), in its meeting, wherein, the said application of the Petitioner was placed, found that there would be no vacancy available within the 5% quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, a Positive recommendation, in respect Page No.# 8/10 of the Petitioner’s claim, was not permissible to be made. The requirement of the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC) to place the case of the Petitioner before the State Level Committee, for consideration of his case, in terms of the provisions of Clause 15 of the OM dated 01.06.2015, in the considered view of this Court, was uncalled for, inasmuch as, the said OM was not in existence on the date of death of the Government Servant involved. 12. Accordingly, the said requirement made by the District Level Committee, in the considered view of this Court, would not provide for an opportunity to the Petitioner for having his case considered. Although the State Level Committee is found to have erroneously rejected the application of the Petitioner, by holding that at the time of the application, the Petitioner was less than 18 (Eighteen) years of age. However, on account of the conclusions drawn by this Court, hereinabove, this Court finds that no right of the Petitioner came to be violated on account of the same, inasmuch as, he was not eligible for being considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. 13. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now examine the claim of the Petitioner for a direction upon the Respondent authorities, for consideration of his case, afresh. As noticed, hereinabove, the father of the Petitioner had died in harness on 24.02.2010. More than 16 (Sixteen) years Page No.# 9/10 have passed, in the meanwhile, the mother of the Petitioner had submitted an application, proximate to the time of the death of the father of the Petitioner. However, the said application is found to have not been pursued diligently by the family of the Petitioner. It is a settled position of law that in matters pertaining to delay, occasioning in taking the application submitted for appointment on compassionate grounds, to its logical conclusion, either on account of the default of the applicant and/or on account of default of the authorities, the said application would not mandate a consideration and immediacy, required to be followed in the matters of compassionate appointment, is to be held to have been lost. The claim made by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition, considering the long lapse of time occasioning since the date of death of his father in harness, has been rendered stale. Accordingly, it would not be permissible for this Court to pass any direction upon the Respondent authorities for a consideration of the case of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, basing on such stale claim. [Refer: State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. reported in 2025 (5) SCC 712] 14. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, the present Writ Petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. Page No.# 10/10 JUDGE Comparing Assistant