Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010100492026 2026:GAU-AS:9920 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2706/2026 SURAJMAL GOALA S/O LT RAJNARAYAN GOALA, R/O VILLAGE- BOALJUR, P.O. BOALJUR, P.S.- SONAI, DIST CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY 06 2:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SHRIBHUMI (ERSTWHILE KARIMGANJ) DIST.- SHRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788710 3:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE SRIBHUMI (ERSTWHILE KARIMGANJ DISTRICT) PIN 78871 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, MS F INTAZ Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 20-07-2026 Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S Baruah, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. [2.] The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for his appointment on compassionate grounds against any post commensurating to his educational qualifications. [3.] The father of the petitioner, while working as a A.B. Constable had died-in- harness on 31.12.2013. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was aged around 12 years. The petitioner on reaching the age of majority, it is projected that his mother had submitted an application on 06.11.2022, praying for the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The respondent authorities had not taken any steps in pursuance to the submission of the said application and accordingly the petitioner again on 18.02.2026, submitted an application praying for consideration of his appointment on compassionate grounds. The applications submitted in the matter for consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds having not been considered by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. [4.] I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. [5.] The petitioner admittedly, at the time of death of his father in harness was a minor aged around 12 years. It is seen that after around 10 (ten) years from Page No.# 3/5 the date of death of the father of the petitioner, an application was submitted on behalf of the petitioner for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. [6.] From the materials brought on record, this Court does not find that proximate to the time of death of the father of the petitioner, any member of the family of the petitioner had approached the respondent authorities praying for consideration of their case for appointment on compassionate grounds. [7.] On a query made by this Court to Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether there was any Policy decision adopted by the State Government with regard to a delayed submission of application by a heir of a deceased Government employee on the ground that on the date of death of the Government servant, the said heir was a minor, Mr. Sheikh has, however, fairly submitted that there is no such Policy decision adopted by the State Government in this connection. [8.] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Manipur vs. Md. Rajaodin, reported in 2003 (7) SCC 511 with regard to the said issue had drawn the following conclusions:- “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 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 Page No.# 4/5 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.” [9.] Applying the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that there is no Government decision permitting a minor to submit a belated application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds upon attaining majority. This Court finds that the Government Circulars invoked in this connection had mandated the submission of such application within a time bound manner and to be considered expeditiously. This Court finds that the father of the petitioner had died-in-harness on 31.12.2013 and thereafter, the family of the petitioner had sustained themselves for the last around 13 (thirteen) years without any of the members of the family being extended with an appointment on compassionate grounds. [10.] The immediacy required to be so followed in respect of an appointment on compassionate grounds in the present case has been found to be lost. This Court is of the considered view that the claim made by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds, after such long lapse of time, since the date of Page No.# 5/5 death of the Government servant, would not mandate an acceptance. [11.] Accordingly, in view of the above discussions, this Court holds that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and therefore, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant