IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointments are not vested rights and must be considered promptly; significant delays dilute the urgency of financial need.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging, inter alia the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground which has been done by the State Level Committee (hereinafter SLC) in its meeting dated 07.06.2017 and again on 04.05.2018.

2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that her husband, Bakul Chandra Kalita, who was working as Senior Accounts Assistant, Sub-Treasury Office, Kaliabor had died in harness on 08.09.2013. The petitioner who claims to be eligible had applied for appointment on compassionate ground and the District Level Committee (DLC), Nagaon had recommended the name of the petitioner to the SLC on 03.03.2015. The SLC however, rejected the case of the petitioner on 07.06.2017 on the ground of overage. On representation of the petitioner, her case was placed before the SLC a second time on 04.05.2018 when once again, her case was rejected.

3. I have heard Shri A. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. M. Barman, learned Government Advocate, Assam and Ms. R.M. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no negligence on her part in applying for appointment on compassionate ground. The DLC in its meeting dated 03.03.2015 had duly recommended the case of the petitioner and even if, the age factor had come in as a barrier, the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 07.06.2017 vested powers to the SLC to exercise discretion and condone the overage. In this connection, the learned counsel has referred to Clause 16 of the OM dated 07.06.2015, as per which such powers to condone delay was vested. It is submitted that the SLC, by failing to exercise its power had acted illegally and thereby caused prejudice to the petitioner.

5. Per contra, Ms. Barman, 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. She 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 on 08.09.2013 and in the meantime, almost 12 years have passed and therefore, there is no requirement in law for such consideration.

6. Ms. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department has endorsed the submission of the learned State Counsel.

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

8. The materials on record make it clear that the death of the husband of the petitioner was on 08.09.2013 and the application appears to be made on 26.09.2013. However, it transpires that on that date of making the application, the age of the petitioner was 40 years 4 months and 26 days which admittedly, is beyond the upper age limit for entry into the Government service. Be that as it may, the DLC, Nagaon on 03.03.2015 had recommended the case of the petitioner. However, the SLC, on detecting the said aspect of overage had rejected her case. It however appears on 04.05.2018 the matter was reconsidered by the SLC on an application made which culminated in another rejection on the same ground of overage.

9. The crux of the argument made on behalf of the petitioner is that Clause 16 of the OM dated 01.06.2015 grants power to the SLC to condone age and that power was not exercised.

10. To examine the said contention, this Court has looked into the consideration of the case of the petitioner by the SLC both on 07.06.2017 and 04.05.2018. On the first occasion, the rejection was on the ground of overage, whereafter the petitioner had prayed for reconsideration