Compassionate appointment is not a vested right; prolonged delay in application undermines the immediacy required for such claims.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bora, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State respondents.

2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, i.e., Bibhuranjan Nath is seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father, i.e., the Late Balen Ch. Nath, who was working as a Forester Grade-I in the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Forest Resources Survey Division, Santipur, Guwahati, died in harness on 21.11.2015. Thereafter, in the month of January, 2016, the petitioner presented an application before the authority seeking appointment on compassionate grounds; however, since the same was allegedly not registered, the petitioner on 08.08.2017 again applied for appointment on compassionate grounds by filling out the requisite Proforma (Annexure-B) to the writ petition. Thereafter, the District Level Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “DLC”) placed the case of the petitioner in its meeting dated 19.06.2018, whereby the case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of late submission of application. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) on 28.09.2018, whereby stating, inter alia, that the delay caused in submitting the second application was due to the first application of the petitioner being misplaced by the authority, and hence, prayed for reconsidering the matter and allowing the application for employment to be processed. The aforesaid representation filed by the petitioner having not borne any fruits, the present writ petition has been filed before this court on 16.08.2023.

4. Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that in the Forest Department, the appropriate authority is the State Level Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “SLC”) and not the DLC for considering the appointment on compassionate grounds, and therefore, the rejection order of the DLC is without jurisdiction. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment & order dated 20.05.2025, passed by the co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Abhijit Kalita v. The State of Assam and Ors. , in WP(C)/4488/2023, and accordingly, prays for disposing of the instant case similarly.

5. Per contra, Mr. D. Bora, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State respondents, submits that in view of the delay of several years since the expiry of the father of the petitioner, the present petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors. , reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 219

6. I have given my prudent consideration to the argument advanced by both the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the material available on record. I have also considered the case laws submitted at the bar.

7. It is apparent that the father of the petitioner died on 21.11.2015. It is further apparent that though initially an application was filed in the month of January, 2016, the same allegedly having been misplaced by the authority, a second application was filed on 08.08.2017. It is further apparent that the petitioner has not submitted any document/application or proof whatsoever of the first application as claimed to have been filed in the month of January, 2016. It is further apparent that the second application was reje