IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a claim for appointment on compassionate ground.

2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that his father, Bheblu Nath, who was working as Grade-IV in the PWD, Dhubri had died in harness on 08.10.2012. The petitioner who claims to be eligible had applied for appointment on compassionate ground which, however was rejected by the District Level Committee (DLC) on 15.07.2013 on the ground of economic criteria. The petitioner had thereafter represented and claims that his case was taken up for reconsideration. However, the result was the same. It is this rejection, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

3. I have heard Shri SK Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri JK Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned decision is unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the petitioner had fulfilled the economic criteria and there were posts lying vacant wherein the petitioner could have been accommodated. It is submitted that the rejection was made in a mechanical manner and without doing a serious analysis of the economic criteria of the petitioner.

5. Per contra, Shri Goswami, learned State Counsel has submitted that the reasons cited for rejecting the case of the petitioner are relevant and germane and therefore, the submission that there is illegality cannot be countenanced. He submits that economic criteria is a relevant consideration in matters of compassionate appointment inasmuch as, the very purpose is to assist the bereaved family to overcome the immediate financial crisis and also the fact that there are numbers of contenders for limited number of posts. He further submits that the objective of the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground is to give immediate relief to a bereaved family which has lost its sole bread winner, who was a Government servant. It is submitted in the instant case that the death was in 2012 and in the meantime, more than 12 years have passed and therefore, there is no requirement in law for such consideration. He has also submitted that affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent no. 4 on 07.11.2023. He has relied upon the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219.

6. The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.

7. The materials on record make it clear that the death of the father of the petitioner was on 08.10.2012. The consideration for rejection of the application of the petitioner is economic criteria. Such reasons cannot be said to be irrelevant or extraneous and no substantial materials have been able to be demonstrated by the petitioner to overcome the same.

8. There is another aspect of the matter with regard to the very objective of the scheme for compassion appointment. The very objective of the scheme, which is an exception to the general mode of recruitment is to give immediate succor to a family which has lost its sole breadwinner who was a Government servant and such objective would not survive after a gap of more than 12 years.

9. The law on compassionate appointment has been elaborately explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra). In the said case, almost all the earlier cases on the subject of compassionate appointment have been discussed and the principles have been laid down. It has been reiterated that an appointment on compassionate ground is a departure from the normal rule and is an exception which is meant only to enable the bereaved family to tie over the sudden financial crisis on the death of a government servant while in service. It