IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Anisur Rahman, S/o. Late Azizur Rahman - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam to be represented by the Chief Secretary, Assam cum Chairman, State Level Committee (SLC), Assam & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 4719 of 2024
Decided On : 18-09-2024
Compassionate Appointment - Writ Petition - Article 226 - The court emphasized the need for immediacy in claims for compassionate appointments, interpreting that delays undermine the purpose of such provisions, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment after his father's death in 2014. His application was rejected in 2020 due to a lack of vacancies, prompting him to file a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that both the petitioner and the authorities had delayed the process, which diluted the sense of immediacy required for compassionate appointments, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Issues: Whether the delay in applying for compassionate appointment affects the eligibility for such appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compassionate appointments are not a vested right and must be claimed promptly; delays can negate the need for immediate assistance intended by such provisions.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Kaushik Goswami, J.
Heard Mr. Z. Hammad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos.1; Ms. S. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.2, 3 & 5 and Ms. S. Kemprai, learned Standing Counsel, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC), appearing for the respondent No.4.
2. By filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the minutes of the meeting of the State Level Committee (SLC), Assam dated 20.02.2020 as well as the speaking order dated 08.06.2020, passed by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health & Family Welfare Department, so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, with a prayer for direction to the respondent authorities to place his case for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground in the next meeting of the SLC, Assam.
3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner, after the death of his father on 20.03.2014, who was working as a Non-Medical Assistant at Balijuri PHC, Karbi Anglong, Assam, applied for appointment on compassionate ground by application dated 29.05.2014 against 5% reserved quota as per the Policy of the State of Assam. It is the further case of the petitioner that the case of the petitioner was rejected by the SLC in its meeting held on 20.02.2020 for want of vacancy, which is reflected in the speaking order dated 08.06.2020 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition). Against the minutes of the meeting of the SLC dated 20.02.2020 and the speaking order dated 08.06.2020 passed by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health & Family Welfare Department, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Mr. Hammad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the SLC has erroneously rejected the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and, therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the respondents have not complied with the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2016.
5. Per contra, Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam; Ms. S. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department and Ms. S. Kemprai, learned Standing Counsel, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC) have vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the writ petition has been belatedly filed after almost 3(three) years from the date of the decision of the SLC and issuance of the speaking order dated 08.06.2020. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents further submit that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., reported in 2023 (2) Supreme 612, is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case.
6. I have given my prudent consideration to the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsels appearing for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. Apt to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), before entering into the merit of the matter. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case while dealing with the issue as whether applications for compassionate appointments could be considered after a delay of several years, has held that after a delay of several years, either on the part of the applicant claiming compassionate appointment, or on the part of the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Paragraphs 7, 8 & 9 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors.
Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana
Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh
State of Haryana vs. Ankur Gupta
Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar
I.G. (Karmik) vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi
Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra
State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir
Moon Mills Ltd. vs. M. R. Meher, President, Industrial Court, Bombay
State of M.P. vs. Nandlal Jaiswal
Compassionate appointments must be sought without undue delay, as prolonged delays can negate the urgency and purpose of such provisions.
Compassionate appointment is a remedy to mitigate financial hardships due to a breadwinner's death, requiring timely application and consideration of changing financial circumstances. Delay can rende....
Compassionate appointment claims are contingent on urgency; significant delays may render applications stale and unjustified, nullifying the relief sought.
Compassionate appointments must be made promptly to address financial crises; delays render such claims stale and unmeritorious.
Compassionate appointment claims must be considered promptly; significant delays can negate the urgency required, making applications stale.
Compassionate appointments must be made promptly to address financial crises; significant delays render claims stale and invalid.
Compassionate appointments are intended for immediate relief, and claims made after significant delays cannot be entertained as the necessary urgency is lost.
Compassionate appointments must be considered promptly to address immediate financial crises; undue delay can render applications stale and ineligible.
Compassionate appointment must be claimed promptly to address immediate financial crises; delay undermines the claim.
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.