IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
GUNAWATI PHUKAN HAZARIKA W/O LATE MINTU HAZARIKA – Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
WP (C) No. 1278 of 2022
Decided On : 07-08-2024
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - EMPLOYMENT LAW - STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. DEBABRATA TIWARI, AIR 2023 SC 1467 - The court discussed the legal framework surrounding compassionate appointments, emphasizing that such appointments are exceptions to standard recruitment procedures aimed at providing immediate relief to bereaved families. The court interpreted the 5% quota as being based on cadre strength rather than vacancy, and highlighted that compassionate appointments should not be claimed after significant delays, as the financial circumstances of the family may have changed. This interpretation influenced the court's decision to dismiss the petition due to the considerable delay in seeking relief.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds following the death of her husband, a government employee, in 2016. Despite a recommendation from the District Level Committee, the State Level Committee rejected her application due to the unavailability of vacancies under the 5% quota.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's application was reasonable, noting that the 5% quota calculation did not yield a vacancy. Additionally, the court emphasized the significant delay in filing the petition, which undermined the purpose of compassionate appointments.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was justified based on the 5% quota and the delay in filing the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compassionate appointments are not a vested right and must be claimed promptly to address immediate financial crises. Delays in seeking such appointments can lead to changes in the family's financial situation, making the claim less valid.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed due to the lack of a case for interference, given the significant delay and the absence of a vacancy under the 5% quota.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
1. Heard Shri DP Chaliha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. M Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri D Bora, learned State Counsel, Assam as well as Shri R Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, Public Works Department, Assam.
2. The claim pertains to an appointment on compassionate ground.
3. The facts projected are that the husband of the petitioner, Mintu Hazarika, who was an employee in the office of the Executive Engineer, Public works Department, Kaliabor Rural Road Division, had died-in-harness on 28.05.2016. The petitioner had made an application for appointment in a Grade-III, LDA post on compassionate ground which was forwarded by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Kaliabor Rural Road Division to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Personnel, Nagaon vide letter dated 22.09.2016.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that in the District Level Committee (DLC) meeting held on 14.12.2016, the name of the petitioner was recommended for a Grade-III post. However, the State Level Committee (SLC) in its meeting held on 31.12.2018 rejected the case of the petitioner on of availability of vacancy under the 5% quota.
5. Shri Chaliha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the rejection of the case of the petitioner is unreasonable as the 5% quota has to be reckoned from the point of view of the cadre strength and not the vacancy position. It is submitted that 16 posts were there and therefore, the petitioner could have been considered for appointment.
6. Per contra, Shri Bora, learned State Counsel has raised the issue of delay and laches in approaching this Court. It is submitted that the death was in the year 2016 and the writ petition was filed only on 11.02.2022 i.e. after about 8 years. It is submitted that the objective of the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground is only to give immediate relief to a bereaved family which has lost the sole breadwinner. The learned State Counsel has also referred to the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others, AIR 2023 SC 1467 and has submitted that after 10 years, no direction can be issued for appointment on compassionate ground.
7. Shri R Dhar, learned Standing Counsel has endorsed the submissions of the learned State Counsel, Shri D Bora.
8. The rival submissions have been considered.
9. The first contention is that 5% quota has to be calculated from the point of view of the cadre strength and it is submitted that the number of posts was 16. However, even if the aforesaid submission is accepted, 5% of 16 will not make even 1 vacancy. That apart, the admitted age of the petitioner at the time of filing of the case in the year 2022 was 49 and therefore, as on today she would be around 51 years of age which is much beyond the permissible age limit for Government service.
10. In any case, the objective of offering an appointment on compassionate ground is only to give immediate succour to the bereaved family which has lost the sole breadwinner and after about 8 years from the said death, no such directions can be issued.
11. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the death of the government employee was in the year 2016 and in the meantime, long 8 years have passed. There is no acceptable or cogent reason explaining the delay for the period from 2018 when the meeting of the SLC was held. As on today, almost 4 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 followin
Compassionate appointments must be pursued promptly; delays diminish the claim's validity and urgency.
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; delays diminish the urgency of such claims.
Compassionate appointments are not vested rights and must be considered promptly to address immediate financial crises; significant delays undermine this purpose.
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 are not vested rights and must be considered promptly; significant delays dilute the urgency of financial need.
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 appointment is not a vested right and should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. Delay in seeking compassionate appointment and changed financial circumstances may....
Compassionate appointments are intended for immediate relief and cannot be claimed after significant delays, as the sense of urgency is lost.
Compassionate appointments must be claimed promptly; significant delays undermine eligibility.
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.