THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J
Tilak Das S/o Late Pradip Das - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 5 Ors - Respondent
WP(C) 2007 / 2023
Decided On : 23-01-2025
(A) Compassionate Appointment - Principles of compassionate appointment emphasized, highlighting that it is an exception to regular recruitment procedures aimed at alleviating financial distress of the deceased employee's family. - The Supreme Court's ruling in State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari & ors. establishes that such appointments should be immediate and not delayed, as the financial condition of the family may change over time. (Paras 32 - 36 )
(B) Delay in Claim - The court noted that a delay of over 17 years in seeking compassionate appointment dilutes the sense of immediacy required for such claims, thereby rendering them stale. (Paras 9 , 10 )
(C) Legal Precedents - The court referred to principles from previous cases establishing that undue delay can bar relief in compassionate appointment cases. (Paras 38 - 40 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for compassionate appointment following the death of his father, who died in harness in 2007. The application was rejected by the State Level Committee on the grounds of insufficient remaining service of the deceased.
Findings of Court:
The court found the delay in the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment to be excessive, leading to a loss of the sense of immediacy required for such claims.
Issues: The main issues were whether the delay in the application for compassionate appointment could be justified and if the case still warranted consideration after such a lengthy period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and must be claimed promptly to address financial crises; delays can negate the urgency of the need.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Heard Ms. N. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Dilip Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate; appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
2. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to the decision arrived at by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 19.12.2011, towards rejecting his case for appointment on compassionate ground.
3. As projected in the writ petition, the father of the petitioner Late th Pradip Das, while working as a Cook in the 11 Assam Police Bn., Dergaon, had died-in-harness on 19.07.2007. At the time of the death of his father in harness, the petitioner was aged about 17 years and accordingly, he could not submit any application immediately for appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, the petitioner, acquired his HSLC certificate and Higher Secondary Arts Examination in the year 2008 and 2010, respectively, submitted an application in the year 2010, itself, before the competent authority praying for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The application as preferred by the petitioner on being recommended by the jurisdictional District Level Committee came to be placed before the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 19.12.2011. The State Level Committee had rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that the same would not mandate a consideration as the father of the petitioner at the time of his death in harness, had only 3 years of service left.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding before this Court.
5. The learned counsels appearing for the parties have reiterated the facts and circumstances as noticed hereinabove.
6. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.
7. At the outset, it is to be noted that the reasoning advanced by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 19.12.2011, for rejecting the case of the petitioner, herein, by holding that the same would not mandate a consideration on the ground that the residual service of 2/3 years on the face of it, would not merit acceptance. However, what has to be noted in the present proceeding is that the father of the petitioner had died-in- harness on 19.07.2007. The family of the petitioner inspite of not being favoured with any sustenance by the Government, had sustained themselves for the last more than 17 years. It is a settled position of law that public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of an application and on merits. The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a source of recruitment. It is merely an exception to the requirement of law keeping in view the fact of the death of the employee while in service, leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over the sudden financial crises. Such appointments on compassionate ground, therefore, have to be made in accordance with the Rules, Regulations, or, administrative instructions taking into consideration, the financial condition of the family of the deceased. The favourable treatment to the dependent of the deceased employee must have a clear nexus with the objects sought to be achieved thereby i.e. relief against destitution. At the same time, however, it should not be forgotten that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions and millions of other families which are equally, if not more, destitute. The exception to the Rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the service rendered by him and the legitimate expectation, and the change in the
Compassionate appointments are exceptions to standard recruitment rules and must be sought immediately to address financial distress; undue delays can render claims stale.
Compassionate appointments must be timely; claims made after significant delays cannot be justified, as financial need may no longer exist.
Compassionate appointments are time-sensitive and must be made without undue delay to address financial distress; stale claims will not be entertained as needs may change over time.
Compassionate appointments must be made promptly to address financial crises, and undue delays can render claims stale and unentitled.
Compassionate appointments must be made promptly to address financial crises; significant delays render applications stale and unconsiderable.
Compassionate appointments must be made promptly to address financial crises; significant delays render claims stale and invalid.
Compassionate appointments are exceptions to standard recruitment processes and must be made promptly; delays can render claims stale and unmeritorious.
Compassionate appointments are exceptional provisions that cannot be claimed after a significant delay, as the immediacy of need must be preserved.
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 appointments must be sought promptly; significant delays negate claims as the urgency diminishes.
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.