Compassionate appointment is not a right but an exceptional remedy under Article 16, requiring prompt action and valid circumstances; delays undermine eligibility.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. F.A. Laskar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. A. Chakraborty, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and 2 and Mr. I. Borthakur, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.3.

2. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment vide the impugned resolution of the DLC Cachar dated 16.08.2025 and further has sought for a mandamus directing the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to place and consider the case of the Petitioner again before the District Level Committee for compassionate appointment in the concerned Department or any other Department as per the OM dated 01.06.2015.

3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant petition is that the Petitioner's father Late Samir Uddin Choudhury was a Grade-IV employee in the Office of the Executive Engineer, PHE, Silchar Division No.1, Silchar, Cachar. Unfortunately he expired on 03.03.2017 leaving behind his widow and three sons including the Petitioner. The petitioner applied on 29.05.2017 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015.

4. It is seen that on various occasions, the Petitioner's applications were considered and thereupon rejected and the last of such rejection was on the basis of resolution dated 16.08.2025 in the Minutes of the District Level Committee Meeting on compassionate appointment. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court.

5. It is relevant to take note of that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment and is also an exception to the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution.

6. It is further seen from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others , (2025) 5 SCC 712 wherein the Supreme Court had categorically held that there is no right to claim appointment on compassionate grounds. Paragraph Nos. 32 and 33 of the said judgment being relevant are reproduced herein under:

“32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge:

32.1. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives i.e. to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.

32.2. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.

32.3. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

32.4. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.

32.5. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency