JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. A. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri B. Deka, learned CGC.

2. Considering the subject matter and also the fact that pleadings have been exchanged, this writ petition filed in the year 2021 is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

3. The facts projected are that the petitioner’s father Prasanta Kalita was working as Junior Intelligence Officer (JIO-II/G) under SIB and posted at Itanagar. The said officer had however died in harness on 11.06.2004 leaving behind his wife (mother of the petitioner) and the petitioner who was aged about two years at that time. It has been projected that though the mother of the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground, she has also expired on 11.06.2010 when the petitioner was aged about 8 years. It is the case of the petitioner that she had attained the age of majority in 2020 and thereafter had made an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 05.11.2020. The respondent no. 5 had initially directed submission of the documents which the petitioner had done. However, vide the impugned order dated 09.04.2021, the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected. The petitioner had thereafter submitted an application for review of the case which has also not been done.

4. Ms. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the only surviving legal heir of the deceased Government servant and had attained majority in the year 2020 and therefore she could not have submitted any application for appointment on compassionate ground earlier. The learned counsel has also highlighted the aspect that her mother, during her lifetime had indeed applied for such appointment and unfortunately the mother of the petitioner had also expired in the year 2010. The learned counsel accordingly submits that appropriate directions be issued for consideration of the prayer of the petitioner.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that under the facts projected, no case for grant of appointment on compassionate ground is made out. The aspect of delay has also been highlighted.

6. It is a settled law that an appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the general mode of recruitment and the entire objective is to give immediate succor to the members of the bereaved family which has lost the sole breadwinner who was a Government servant. The objective is to mitigate the immediate crisis suffered by such appointment on compassionate ground is defeated by reasons of delay.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., reported in AIR 2023 SC 1467 has laid down as follows:

“7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge:

(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 following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e. to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.

(ii) Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.

(iii) Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

(iv) That compassionate appointment should be