Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Chimpi Gogoi D/o Late Horendra Nath Gogoi – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of refusal for compassionate appointment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on the merits of compassionate appointment. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments on eligibility and delay issues. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's observations on application handling, vague pleadings. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. principles governing compassionate appointments and delay. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. petition dismissed; no relief to petitioner. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging, inter alia the rejection of the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.
2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that her father, Horendra Nath Gogoi, who was working as Assistant Teacher at Rampur MV School in the district of Lakhimpur and had died in harness on 19.04.2016. The petitioner, who claims to be eligible, had applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 20.06.2016. However, the District Level Committee (DLC), Lakhimpur was not considering the same and was deferring such consideration. The petitioner claims that she had again approached the DEEO, Lakhimpur and was
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 exceptions to normal recruitment rules, not vested rights, and must satisfy immediate needs without prolonged delays affecting eligibility.
Compassionate appointment is meant for immediate relief to bereaved families and cannot be claimed after significant delays, as established by the Supreme Court.
Compassionate appointments are not a vested right and must be granted promptly; delays undermine their purpose.
Compassionate appointments are intended for immediate relief and should not be claimed after significant delays, as urgency diminishes over time.
Compassionate appointments are exceptions meant for immediate relief and not vested rights; delays undermine their purpose.
Compassionate appointments are not vested rights and must be considered promptly to address immediate financial crises; delays diminish the urgency of such claims.
Compassionate appointment claims must be pursued without undue delay, as significant lags undermine the objective of immediate relief for bereaved families.
Compassionate appointments are not vested rights and must be considered promptly to address immediate financial crises; significant delays undermine this purpose.
Compassionate appointments must be sought immediately after the death of a government employee, as delays negate the intended relief purpose.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
