SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 790

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.
Shri. Lal Babu Basfore Husband Of Late Kiria Basfore - Appellant
VERSUS
The Union Of India And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 89 Of 2021
Decided On : 17-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MS. P CHANDA, M WABANG, MOA JAMIR,M SOLO,K T SANGTAM
For the Respondent: MR. Y. P. GUPTA

Compassionate appointments must be processed timely to alleviate financial hardship, and undue delays compromise the immediacy of need, as reaffirmed by circulars from the Railway Authorities.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Appointment on compassionate grounds - Petitioner sought appointment as the dependent of deceased employee after 17 years of her death, which led to a dispute regarding delayed applications and financial hardship. Such appointments must be considered for immediate financial relief. (Paras 2, 8, 16, 20, 22).

(B) Delay in application - Court emphasized the need for timely applications for compassionate appointments, stating that claims delayed beyond five years from the death of the employee compromise the sense of immediacy and need. (Paras 18, 19).

(C) Guidelines provided by the Railway Establishment Rules - Circulars outline the criteria and timelines for considering applications on compassionate grounds. (Paras 4, 18, 21).

Facts of the case:
Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment after his wife, a Railway employee, died in harness. Despite multiple applications from 2009 to 2019, the request was not processed, leading to financial distress for the petitioner and his daughter.

Findings of Court:
The petition is disposed of with a directive to consider the applications within three months as per the relevant circulars.

Issues: The main issues involved delay in compassionate appointment applications and the subsequent impact on the petitioner's financial situation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court recognized that compassionate appointments should address unexpected financial distress, emphasizing that prolonged delays diminish the claim's viability.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions.

Table of Content
1. petitioner applies for compassionate appointment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. supreme court's directive on compassionate appointment urgency. (Para 8 , 9)
3. respondents argue against the claim’s validity. (Para 10 , 12 , 14)
4. legal framework and necessity of timely applications. (Para 11)
5. petitioner receives family pension. (Para 13)
6. criteria and delay considerations in compassionate appointments. (Para 16 , 18 , 20)
7. verdict directing timely consideration of applications. (Para 21)
8. directives for reconsideration of applications. (Para 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.

Heard learned counsel Mr. P. Chanda for the petitioner, and Mr. Y. P. Gupta, for the respondents.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner praying for appointment on compassionate ground.

2. The facts in the petition is that the petitioner’s wife was serving as a Safaiwala under H&MI, Dimapur and died in harness on 23.05.2024 leaving behind the petitioner and his daughter. After the demise of the petitioner’s wife, the petitioner having no means of livelihood had approached the concerned authorities on several occasions along with all necessary documents for appointment on compassionate ground against any group D category. The petitioner and his daughter do not have any employment in the Railways or any other State or Central Government organizations and as such they are facing immense financial difficulties. The petitioner submitted an application dated 06.08.2009 along with all necessary documents to the Divisional Railway Manager, North East Frontier Railways Lumding, Assam for appointment on compassionate ground and the same was forwarded to the higher authorities. However, the respondents failed to consider his application. The petitioner’s wife was holding a regular post at the time of her demise and as such family pension has been granted to the petitioner in appreciation of the service rendered by the deceased employee during her life time.

3. Being aggrieved by the non action of the respondents even after a lapse of eleven years from the date of expiry of the petitioner’s wife, the petitioner submitted another application dated 09.04.2015 to the Divisional Railway Manager, North East Frontier Railway, Lumding with a similar prayer for appointment of compassionate ground in any Group ‘D’ category post. However, the same was also kept in cold storage by the respondents.

4. As per Railway Establishment Rules and Labour Rules, appointment on compassionate ground is offered limited to dependents of the deceased employees of the railways.

5. It is further stated that in spite of the existence of a policy for appointment of dependents of employees, who died in harness while in service, the inaction of the respondents even after a lapse of fifteen years from the date of death of the petitioner’s wife is a case of discrimination and arbitrary action by the respondents.

6. Having no alternative remedy, the petitioner made another application dated 03.05.2019, to the Divisional Railway Manager North East Frontier Railway, Lumding praying for a compassionate appointment, which was duly received. However, this application was also not considered. It is stated that the petitioner has completed his Secondary School Examination and as such, he is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds in Group ‘D’ category, as per the Railway Establishments Rules and Labor Rules.

7. The Secretary of the NE Railway, Mazdoor Union, Dimapur, Branch vide letter dated 22.01.2020 wrote to the Divisional Railway Manager (P), N.F. Railway, Lumding on the subject of compassionate appointment of the petitioner, referring the three applications of the petitioner dated 06.08.2009, 09.04.2015 and 03.05.2019, which were not considered till date. The Secretary of the NE railway, Mazdoor Union, Dimapur Branch also stated in the said letter that the petitioner is a genuine applicant as per CGA scheme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top