Compassionate appointments are not rights and must be addressed immediately; delays can render claims void due to the absence of financial crisis.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.J. Baruah, 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; and Ms. M. Kalita, learned standing counsel, PHED; appearing on behalf of their respective respondents.

2. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for effecting appointment in respect of the petitioner on compassionate ground in terms of the recommendations made by the jurisdictional District Level Committee. The petitioner has further prayed for a review of the decision of the State Level Committee so arrived at in respect of the application so submitted by her in its meeting held on 21.11.2015.

3. As projected in the writ petition, the husband of the petitioner Late Sanjib Narayan Das while working as a Junior Engineer in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PHED, Dhubri Division, Dhubri, had died-in-harness on 08.10.2010. The petitioner in pursuance of the death of her husband in harness, submitted an application on 06.01.2011, before the competent authority praying for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground. The application as submitted by the petitioner in the matter, came to be placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 25.01.2011. The jurisdictional District Level Committee on consideration of the application of the petitioner, proceeded to recommend her case for appointment on compassionate ground along with that of one Shri Dulal Roy who had also made a similar application. The recommendations as made by the jurisdictional District Level Committee came to be placed before the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 17.03.2015. However, no recommendation was made by the State Level Committee in the said meeting. Thereafter, it is projected that the case of the petitioner was again placed before the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 21.11.2015. The State Level Committee, thereafter, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors., 2006 (4) GLT 674; proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner by holding that the same being not considered for want of vacancies for a period of 2 years, the said application must be understood to have spent its force. The decision as arrived at by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 21.11.2015, was communicated by the respondent authorities vide communication, dated 28.01.2016, to the petitioner, herein.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding before this Court.

5. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner, has reiterated the facts as noticed hereinabove and has submitted that the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 25.01.2011, had recommended the case of the petitioner along with one Shri Dulal Roy for appointment on compassionate ground against an identified vacant post of Grade-IV. However, the State Level Committee without appreciating the rival merit of the candidate placed before it; in terms of the recommendations made by the jurisdictional District Level Committee, proceeded to reject the case of the petitioner. It is submitted that subsequently said Shri Roy was recommended for appointment on compassionate ground.

6. In the above premises, Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner, herein, has been discriminated against in the matter and accordingly, the decision as arrived a