Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 2065
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, CJ., ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
The State of Assam, Represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam - Petitioner
Versus
Dipak Gogoi, Son of Late Labu Rram Gogoi – Respondent
Writ Appeal No.287 of 2023, Writ Appeal No.50 2024, Writ Appeal No.51 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.57 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.59 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.75 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.78 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.79 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.80 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.82 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.83 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.85 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.86 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.98 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.103 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.104 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.123 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.125 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.126 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.130 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.133 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.146 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.153 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.156 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.200 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.224 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.230 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.243 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.244 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.265 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.322 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.322 of 2025
Decided On : 12-12-2025
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Employment
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Compassionate appointments are not vested rights and should not be claimed after significant delays; however, immediate needs of dependants must be addressed. (Paras 6-10)
(C) The State's contention for policy adherence was overruled; principles for compassionate appointment established by judicial precedents reaffirmed. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
The State challenged a judgment striking down a memorandum clause, restricting compassionate appointment eligibility to dependants of Government employees with less than three years of service remaining at the time of death. The learned Single Judge noted this cut-off was unconstitutional under Article 14.
Findings of Court:
Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 was declared unconstitutional, requiring reconsideration of rejected applications without the restrictive eligibility criteria.
Issues: The main issue addressed was the constitutionality of the eligibility cut-off and its rational basis.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the classification arbitrary, lacking a rational basis related to the objective of the memorandum; thus, the decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld.
Result: Appeals disposed of with an affirmation of the learned Single Judge's order.
For the Petitioner:Mr. D. Saikia, Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Ms. P.
Baruah, Advocate., Mr. D. Nath, Senior Government Advocate, Assam., Mr. D. Saikia, Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Ms. P. Baruah, Advocate., Mr. N.J. Khataniar, Standing Counsel, Education Department., Ms. A. Das, Standing Cousnel, Education Department., Mr. D.K. Sharma, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam., Ms. R. Baruah, Advocate.
For the Private Respondents:Mr. D.P. Chaliha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. M. Ray, Advocate., Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, Advocate., Mr. N. Hossain, Advocate., Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, Advocate., Mr. J. Ali, Advocate., Mr. M. Khan, Advocate., Mr. B.K. Gogoi, Advocate., Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, Advocate., Ms. A. Devi, Advocate., Mr. I.H. Saikia, Advocate., Mr. M. Kalita, Advocate., Mr. R. Boro, Advocate., Mr. K.R. Patgiri, Advocate., Mr. A.M. Ahmed, Advocate., Mr. A. Barman, Advocate
For the Proforma Respondents:Mr. D.K. Sharma, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam., Mr. N.J. Khataniar, Standing Counsel, Education
Department., Ms. A. Das, Standing Counsel, Education Department., Ms. R. Barua, Standing Counsel, Education Department.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. unconstitutionality of eligibility cut-off for compassionate appointment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for and against clause on compassionate appointments. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. supreme court principles on compassionate appointment and delay. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. judicial observations on the application of compassionate appointment. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. final order on disposition of the appeals. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
Ashutosh Kumar, CJ.
In these set of writ appeals, the State has challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.01.2023 passed in analogous writ petitions, the lead case being WP(C) No.1646/2021, striking down Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, which imposed an eligibility cut-off for compassionate appointment, namely, that the dependants of a deceased Government employee who died in harness, would not be entitled to compassionate appointment if the deceased Government employee had less than 3(three) years of service remaining at the time of his death.
2. The offending Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 is being extracted herein below:-
“(1) Only one dependent family member of a Government servant appointed on regular basis - excluding one working on daily wage or casual or apprentice or ad-hoc or contract or re-employment basis - who die in harness or become incapacitated due to accidents suffered while on duty and is eligible to opt for invalid pension under relevant provision of Service Rule/Pension Code and/or who is missing is eligible for making application for compassionate appointment provided in each case the Government servant has balance of minimum of 3 years of service.”
3. Several writ petitions were filed impugning the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015.
The learned Single Judge, as noted above, declared Clause 1 of the said Office Memorandum to be unconstitutional for it being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and directed the authorities to reconsider the rejected cases afresh.
4. The State had defended Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 as a rational classification intended to prevent fraud and misuse; the said Office Memorandum being inconformity with the 10(ten) principles enunciated for compassionate appointment in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. -Vs- State of Assam & Ors. :: 2006 (4) GLT 674 and it being in sync with the Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2013 of the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, which too was referred to before framing the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015.
It was also contended that compassionate appointment is an exception to the merit based recruitment under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and is not a vested right but a humanitarian concession to prevent destitution. The 3(three) year condition is justified as it compliments family pension benefits. The State also pointed out that the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 now stands superseded by a new Scheme vide Office Memorandum No.FEG.28/2017/26 dated 14.09.2017 issued by the Finance Department, which actually replaces Compassionate Appointments with Compassionate Family Pension Scheme providing enhanced pension benefits instead.
5. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam appearing for the appellant/State has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal -Vs- Debabrata Tiwari & Ors.:: (2025) 5 SCC 712 wherein it has been conclusively held that the delay of several years, whether the delay was occasioned on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment; or on the part of the authorities in deciding such claims, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. The financial circumstances of the family of the deceased may have changed in the meantime for the better since the time of the death of the Government employee. It was held by the Supreme Court, therefore, that the Courts or other relevant au
