IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Panchala Mohan Giri Wife Of Late Paresh Mohan – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 4194 of 2024
Decided on : 21-08-2024
Compassionate Appointment - Compassionate Grounds - Various Sections - The Court emphasized that compassionate appointments are exceptions to standard recruitment procedures, intended for immediate relief to bereaved families, and cannot be claimed after significant delays, as the urgency diminishes over time.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment following the death of her husband, a government employee, in 2009. Despite recommendations, her application was rejected by the State Level Committee in 2015, leading to the current petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the delay of over 15 years in seeking compassionate appointment undermined the essence of immediate relief intended by such provisions, as established by precedent.
Issues: Whether the delay in applying for compassionate appointment affects the validity of the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointments are not vested rights and must be claimed promptly; significant delays dilute the urgency and financial need that justify such appointments.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
The claim in this petition pertains to compassionate appoint.
2. As per the facts projected, the husband of the petitioner, Paresh Mohan was a Lower Division Assistant (LDA) in the office of the Additional Director of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department (Hills), Haflong, who had expired on 15.08.2009 while in service.
3. The petitioner claims to have applied for appointment on compassionate ground. In this connection, the learned counsel has referred to a communication dated 23.08.2011 recommending the case of the petitioner. The matter was taken by the District Level Committee (DLC) and in its meeting held on 10.02.2011, the case of the petitioner was forwarded to the SLC. The case of the petitioner was, however, rejected by the SLC on 30.12.2015 which is the dispute in WP(C)/6077/2021. The said writ petition was disposed of by directing consideration of the case of the petitioner in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. It is submitted that though the petitioner had approached the authorities by filing representations, the same has not been considered.
4. Shri Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner has not been fairly treated inasmuch as the OM dated 01.06.2015 has opened further avenues for such consideration in other departments also where vacancies exist.
5. Per contra, Ms. A Talukdar, learned State Counsel, Assam has raised the issue of delay and laches in approaching this Court. It is submitted that the death was in the year 2009. 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 & Ors., reported in AIR 2023 SC 1467 and has submitted that after almost 15 years, no direction can be issued for appointment on compassionate ground.
6. 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.
7. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the death of the government employee was in the year 2009. This Court has also noticed that tough the earlier order of this Court is dated 17.11.2021, there was no petition filed alleging disobedience and rather, by the present petition, a similar claim has been made which already has been decided. As on today, more than 15 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 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) Compassiona
Compassionate appointments must be sought immediately after the death of a government employee, as delays negate the intended relief purpose.
Compassionate appointments must be pursued promptly; delays diminish the claim's validity and urgency.
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.
Compassionate appointments are intended for immediate relief and cannot be claimed after significant delays, as the sense of urgency is lost.
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and must be pursued promptly to address immediate financial crises; delays diminish the urgency and relevance of the application.
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 matter of right and should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress, and it cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis ....
Compassionate appointments are an exception for immediate support to bereaved families, not a vested right, and must be considered without undue delay to fulfill their intended purpose.
Compassionate appointments are not a vested right and must be granted promptly; delays undermine their purpose.
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.