Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010138752025 2026:GAU-AS:9485 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3717/2025 SRI SONY DAS S/O- LATE SRIKANTA DAS. R/O- VILL.- KARNAMADHU, P.O.- KARNAMADHU, P.S.- KARIMGANJ, PIN- 788712. DIST.- SRI BHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY , HOME AND PERSONAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM. 2:DIRECTOR GENENRAL OF POLICE ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER GUWAHATI-07 ULUBARI GUWAHATI. 3:DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (A) ASSSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07. 4:DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (SC) SILCHAR P.O.- SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HAILAKANDI TOWN P.O.- HAILAKANDI DIST.- HAILAKANDI Page No.# 2/8 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S NATH, R. SAHA,MR. N G KUNDU Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 13.07.2026 Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate grounds on the premise that his father, who was serving as an AB Constable under the Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi District, died in harness on 21.04.2012 due to a sudden heart attack. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that at the time of the death of his father in the year 2012, he was only 10 years of age and was studying in school. It is further his case that despite the untimely demise of his father, who was the sole earning member of the family, his mother somehow managed to maintain the family from the family pension and enabled him to complete his education. He eventually passed the HSLC Examination in the year 2021. Thereafter, upon attaining majority and acquiring the requisite qualification for appointment to a Grade-III or Grade-IV post, the petitioner, in the year 2023, submitted an application before the Office of the Superintendent Page No.# 3/8 of Police, Hailakandi, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with his qualification. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi, by letter dated 09.09.2024, requested him to appear before the Assistant Commissioner and Executive Magistrate, Hailakandi, on 12.09.2024 along with all original documents for verification so that his case could be placed before the next available meeting of the District Level Committee (DLC). According to the petitioner, since no further action was taken thereafter, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that since the petitioner was a minor at the time of the death of his father, he could not have applied earlier. He further submits that the authorities did not reject his application on the ground of delay when it was submitted in the year 2023. On the contrary, they processed the application by directing him to produce the original documents and thereafter forwarded his case for consideration before the DLC. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner’s case deserves to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. 6. Per contra, Mr. R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents, vehemently opposes the prayer made in the writ petition primarily on the ground that the claim has been raised after an inordinate delay. He submits that the very object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succor to the bereaved family and not to create another source of Page No.# 4/8 public employment. He further submits that there is no rule or policy framed by the State of Assam which permits a minor, upon attaining majority, to claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the following decisions: i) State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219. ii) Tapan Saikia vs. The Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman, State Level Committee for Compassionate Appointment and 5 Others, in WP(C) No. 6919/2023, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 8. It appears that the petitioner’s father died in harness on 21.04.2012. It is an admitted fact that at the time of his father’s death, the petitioner was only ten years old. Upon attaining majority, he submitted his application seeking compassionate appointment only in the year 2023, nearly eleven years after the death of his father. The present writ petition was also instituted only on 23.06.2025, i.e., more than thirteen years after the death of the employee. 9. The Apex Court has consistently held that the object underlying the scheme of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of a deceased Government employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis arising from the death of its sole breadwinner. In Debabrata Tiwari (supra), the Apex Court categorically held that compassionate Page No.# 5/8 appointment is not a vested right but is intended solely to alleviate the immediate financial hardship suffered by the dependants of the deceased employee. Consequently, a claim raised after the lapse of a considerable period from the date of death ordinarily cannot be entertained. The underlying rationale is that where the family has been able to sustain itself for such a prolonged period, the element of immediacy, which is the very foundation of compassionate appointment, stands completely diluted. 10. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a minor at the time of the death of his father and, therefore, could not have submitted an application earlier also cannot be accepted. 11. It is evident that although the petitioner was only ten years old when his father passed away and was then pursuing his studies, his mother was able to maintain the family and provide him with the necessary education. It is also seen that the petitioner successfully completed his education. It is, therefore, apparent that the family was able to sustain itself despite the demise of the sole breadwinner. 12. Though this Court has sympathy for the petitioner, relief cannot be granted merely on the basis of sympathy or empathy. The Apex Court, in Debabrata Tiwari (supra), has unequivocally held that a belated claim for compassionate appointment cannot be entertained, irrespective of whose fault occasioned the delay. The mere fact that the petitioner’s case was processed by the authorities and forwarded to the District Level Committee does not create any enforceable right Page No.# 6/8 in his favour nor can it override the settled legal principles governing compassionate appointment. 13. The decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Tapan Saikia (supra) also makes it abundantly clear that the mere fact that an applicant was a minor at the time of the death of the Government employee does not entitle him to claim compassionate appointment upon attaining majority after the lapse of several years. The relevant observations made therein are reproduced below: “Be that as it may, responding to the petitioner’s case, Mr. Dhar, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Manipur Vs. Md. Rajaodin reported in 2003 (7) SCC 511, to submit that there is no circular in the State of Assam permitting a minor to submit application for appointment on compassionate ground upon attaining majority, several years after the death of the Govt. employee. Mr. Dhar further submits that since the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the immediate financial hardship of the deceased’s family, an application of such nature cannot be considered favourably after the lapse of 21 years since the demise of the Govt. employee. Mr. Barman, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has, however, submitted that since his client was a minor at the relevant point of time, there was no delay in submitting the application. In the case of Md. Rajaodin (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the above issue. The observations made in paragraph 11 of the judgment would be relevant for the purpose of this case and therefore, is being reproduced here- in-below for ready reference:- ‘11. In Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. [1989 (4) SCC 468] it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the Page No.# 7/8 family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above view was reiterated in Phoolwati (Smt.) Vs. Union of India & Ors. [1991 Supp. (2) SCC 689] and Union of India and Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Singh [1995 (6) SCC 476]. In Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. Vs. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors. [1998 (5) SCC 192] it was observed that in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependent of the deceased employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the general provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an exception and thererby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision.’ There is no doubt or dispute about the fact that there is no Govt. circular in the State of Assam permitting a minor to submit belated application seeking appointment on compassionate ground upon attaining majority. Rather, the standing Govt. circulars, at the relevant point of time had laid down that such application should be filed in a time bound manner and consider as expeditiously as possible. It is to be noted that even if the age of the petitioner on the date of filing the original application in the year 2007 is taken into account, even then it is apparent that he had survived more than 16 years without any Govt. employment. Therefore, there is no justification for this Court to presume that element of compassion is still present in the case of the applicant/ writ petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, as noted above, this Court is of opinion that there is no good ground to entertain this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.” 14. A reading of the aforesaid judgment leaves no room for this Court to take a view different from that adopted by the learned Page No.# 8/8 Coordinate Bench in Tapan Saikia (supra). In the present case, the petitioner’s father died on 21.04.2012, whereas the application seeking compassionate appointment was submitted only in the year 2023. Such a belated claim defeats the very object of compassionate appointment, which is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner. Once the family has survived for more than a decade without such appointment, the very basis for invoking the compassionate appointment scheme ceases to exist. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Debabrata Tiwari (supra), as followed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Tapan Saikia (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant