Discriminatory Compassionate Appointment Denied: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation for Procedural Irregularity

In a significant ruling addressing procedural fairness in government employment, the Gauhati High Court has underscored that administrative bodies must maintain consistency when evaluating claims for compassionate appointments. While the petitioner, Udit Narayan Purkayastha, was ultimately denied the job he sought due to the passage of time rendering his claim "stale," the Court held the State government accountable, ordering it to pay ₹1,00,000 as compensation for discriminatory treatment.

A Long-Standing Dispute

The case originated from the death of the petitioner’s father, a government employee, in 2012. Following the tragedy, the petitioner promptly applied for a Grade-IV post under the state’s compassionate appointment scheme. While the District Level Committee (DLC) initially recommended his case in 2014, the State Level Committee (SLC) did not finalize the decision until October 2019.

During the same period, the SLC reviewed the case of another applicant, Seema Deb, whose husband had also passed away in service. The SLC approved her application while rejecting the petitioner’s, citing that his application had "spent its force" after two years of pendency.

The Court’s Analysis: A Tale of Two Yardsticks

The High Court, presided over by Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair, scrutinized the SLC’s internal decision-making process. The Court found that the Committee had applied conflicting standards—essentially moving the goalposts for the petitioner while being lenient toward the respondent.

"This Court is not satisfied with the explanation so set out by the respondent authority," Justice Nair noted. "In the event the petitioner’s claim was rejected on the ground that his application having remained pending for 02 years, had spent its force and there were no vacancies available... the claim of the respondent No. 7 could not have been recommended."

The Court highlighted that the state’s own policy, informed by the precedent in Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. , mandates strict timelines for such appointments. By applying different criteria to similarly situated applicants, the SLC engaged in an act of manifest discrimination.

The Question of "Staleness"

Despite finding clear evidence of unfair treatment, the Court faced the practical reality of the significant time elapsed—nearly 13 years since the death of the petitioner's father. Drawing on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of W.B. Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. , Justice Nair explained that the constitutional purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate, emergent relief to a grieving family.

"The purpose behind providing appointment on compassionate ground is to provide immediate relief to the family... In the case on hand, considering the long lapse of time occasioning since the date of death of the father of the petitioner, the immediacy required... is lost," the Court observed.

Key Observations

• On Procedural Fairness: "A perusal of the said decision would reveal the SLC in its meeting held on 03-10-2019, had applied two different yardsticks while considering the claim of the petitioner, herein, and while considering the claim of the respondent No. 7."
• On Discrimination: "This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, has been discriminated against by the SLC while considering his application for appointment on compassionate grounds."
• On Claim Validity: "The claim of the petitioner has been rendered a stale one. Accordingly, it would not be permissible for this Court to pass a direction upon the respondent authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner."

Final Decision: Accountability Over Appointment

Recognizing that the petitioner had been unfairly deprived of a fair consideration, the Court refused to displace Respondent No. 7, who had already served for four years. Instead, it ordered the State to pay compensation of ₹1,00,000 within two months. This judgment serves as a cautionary tale for government committees, emphasizing that administrative power must be exercised uniformly, and that while a court may not be able to "resurrect" an expired claim, it will hold the state liable for the harm caused by arbitrary decision-making.