Compassionate appointment claims must be made promptly; significant delay renders them stale as such claims are not vested rights meant to address immediate financial distress.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. P.K. Medhi, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents.

2. The petitioner in the present proceeding has assailed a decision dated 06-12-2023 of the State Level Committee (SLC) in rejecting the claim of the petitioner, herein, for appointment on compassionate ground for want of vacancy within the 5% quota mandated for effecting such appointments.

3. The father of the petitioner while working as Gr-IV employee in the office of the General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Barpeta, had died-in-harness, on 17-11-2014. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground. The application of the petitioner was, thereafter, forwarded to the District Level Committee (DLC) for consideration, however, the said application remained pending consideration for a considerable period of time. The application of the petitioner was considered by the DLC in its meeting held on 25-02-2016 and on such consideration, the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment against a vacant post that had occasioned in the year 2015 in the establishment of the respondent No. 4. The recommendation made by the DLC came to be placed before the State Level Committee (SLC) and the said committee in its meeting held on 18-01-2020, proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground of want of vacancies for effecting his appointment within the quota prescribed for appointment on compassionate ground.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner had assailed the decision of the SLC, before this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1853/2020. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09-08-2023 disposed of the said writ petition directing the SLC to consider the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the recommendation, so made by the DLC, by applying the Office Memorandum dated 02-03-2009.

It is seen that the case of the petitioner was again placed before the SLC in its meeting held on 06-12-2023 by the authorities. The SLC after reconsidering the claim of the petitioner proceeded to reject the same holding that there was no vacancy within the 5% quota reserved for appointment on compassionate ground.

It is in the said background that the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

5. The materials brought on record reveals that the father of the petitioner had died- in-harness on 17-11-2014. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was considered by the DLC as well as by the SLC in terms of the policy of the State Government for extending appointments on compassionate ground. The SLC had rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there was no vacancy within the 5% quota kept reserved for appointment on compassionate ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said reasoning advanced by the SLC, insofar as, the case of the petitioner is concerned is clearly perverse inasmuch as the jurisdictional DLC had categorically made recommendation in favour of the petitioner against an identified vacant post which was projected to fall within the 5% quota mandated for appointment on compassionate ground.

6. This Court on examination of the rival contention brought on record by the learned counsel for the parties, finds that even if the reasoning advanced by the SLC in the matter is erroneous, considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter after the death of the father of the petitioner, which had occasioned on 17-11-2014, it would not be open to this Court, after 11 years, to issue a direction upon the respondent authorities to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. This Court holds that the claim of the petitioner, in view of the