IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Sabbir Ahmed, S/o. Late Altaf Hussian - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, Rep. by Commissioner Secretary Govt. of Assam & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 7290 of 2017
Decided On : 22-04-2024
Compassionate Appointment - Appointment on Compassionate Ground - - [The Compassionate Appointment Scheme] - The court discussed the provisions of the Compassionate Appointment Scheme and emphasized that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general mode of recruitment, intended to provide immediate succor to a bereaved family. The court highlighted that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment and should be provided immediately to alleviate the family's financial crisis. The court also emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after a lapse of time, and any delay dilutes the sense of immediacy and may lead to the loss of the opportunity for compassionate appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds following the death of their father, a government servant, in 2010. The District Level Committee rejected the petitioner's case citing lack of vacancies and a court order. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking consideration of their case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay of 14 years in filing the writ petition and seeking compassionate appointment was not justified. The court emphasized that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate succor to a bereaved family, and any delay dilutes the sense of immediacy and may lead to the loss of the opportunity for compassionate appointment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment, filed after a delay of 14 years, should be considered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general mode of recruitment, intended to provide immediate succor to a bereaved family. The court emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after a lapse of time, and any delay dilutes the sense of immediacy and may lead to the loss of the opportunity for compassionate appointment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, citing the delay of 14 years in filing the petition and the principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari.
Heard Shri P. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri R. Dhar, the learned State Counsel for the respondents.
2. The claim is towards an appointment on compassionate ground.
3. The facts projected in the petition is that the father of the petitioner, Altaf Hussain, who was working as a Junior Assistant in the amalgamated establishment of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang had died-in-harness on 19.11.2010. The petitioner, who claims to be qualified and according applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 07.01.2011. However, the District Level Committee in its meeting held on 01.10.2016 had rejected the case of the petitioner basically on two grounds. Firstly, it has been reflected that there were no vacancies and secondly, due to an order passed by this Court.
4. Shri Bhardwaj, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the grounds of rejection though may be relevant at that point of time is no longer existing. In this regard, by drawing the attention of this Court to the annexures in the additional affidavit filed on 27.09.2023, the learned counsel has submitted that the interim stay order pursuant to which the selection was kept on abeyance was vacated by this Court on 06.04.2018 passed in the concerned WP(C) No. 7318/2013 by which the writ petition itself was dismissed.
5. The learned counsel has also referred to an advertisement dated 09.10.2017 whereby applications were invited for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant in the said establishment. The learned counsel accordingly submits that when vacancies were available and there was no impediment in the form of any stay order, a direction may be issued for consideration of the case of the petitioner.
6. Shri Dhar, the learned State Counsel has however opposed the writ petition. At the outset, the learned State Counsel has submitted that the death was in the year 2010 and after an efflux of about 14 years, any direction for consideration would not be in consonance with the scheme for compassionate appointment.
7. On the facts of the case, the learned counsel has submitted that though the impediment in the form of stay order was removed vide order dated 06.04.2018, the advertisement which has been issued on 09.10.2017 would show that 12 numbers of posts were advertised. It is submitted that since the reservation is 5%, no posts otherwise also can be given to any persons under the aforesaid category.
8. The learned State Counsel has also placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219.
9. The rival contentions have been duly considered. The law relating to compassionate appointment is well settled. Such appointment is an exception to general mode/method of recruitment wherein an exception is carved out to give immediate succour to a bereaved family which has lost the sole breadwinner who was a government servant. The essence of such appointment is of immediate nature and the said essence would be lost by efflux of time.
10. In the instant case, the death of the father of the petitioner was in the year 2010 and the writ petition itself has been filed after 7 years. There is no acceptable or cogent reasons explaining the delay and the mere submission of representation would not extend the time. As on today, about 14 years have passed and any direction towards consideration of the claim of the petitioner further would not be in sync with the claim of compassionate appointment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) has laid down as follows:
(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 follow
Compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate succor to a bereaved family, and any delay dilutes the sense of immediacy and may lead to the loss of the opportunity for compassionate appo....
Compassionate appointments must be pursued promptly; delays diminish the claim's validity and urgency.
Compassionate appointments must be claimed promptly; significant delays undermine eligibility.
Appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of any vested right and is not a source of recruitment. Prolonged delay dilutes the sense of immediacy in granting compassionate appointment.
Compassionate appointments must be sought immediately after the death of a government employee, as delays negate the intended relief purpose.
Compassionate appointments are not vested rights and must be considered promptly to address immediate financial crises; significant delays undermine this purpose.
Compassionate appointments are not vested rights and must be considered promptly to address immediate financial crises; delays diminish the urgency of such claims.
Compassionate appointments must be made promptly to address financial distress; significant delays render claims stale and ineligible for consideration.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be entertained after a considerable period of time since the death of the government employe....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.