SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 167

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Bacchu Das S/o Late Nakul Chandra Das – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 501 of 2023
Decided On : 28-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : B. Purkayastha
For the Respondent: M. Bhattacharjee

Compassionate appointment is a discretionary policy meant to provide immediate support to bereaved families and cannot be claimed as a right after financial crises subside.

Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Article 16 of the Constitution - Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 - The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for compassionate appointment due to his father's insufficient service balance at the time of death. The rejection contradicted a previous court ruling which invalidated the relevant clause of the memorandum. The court highlighted that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment but a policy to provide immediate support to bereaved families. (Paras 3, 6, 7)

(B) Legal Principles - Principles of compassionate appointment as derived from Supreme Court judgments emphasize that such appointments are exceptions to standard recruitment procedures and must address immediate financial crises. They are not vested rights. They should be applied swiftly post the breadwinner's death to be effective. (Paras 6.1, 6.2, 6.3)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s father died in 2008, leaving him and his mother. His application for compassionate appointment was rejected based on a clause which has been struck down in court.

Findings of Court:
While the rejection was not consistent with the law, the petitioner had sustained his livelihood for 18 years, deeming it inappropriate to issue fresh directions for reconsideration.

Issues: Whether the rejection was valid given the subsequent legal developments regarding the memorandum and the timing of the appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirms that compassionate appointments are not rights and must cater to immediate financial need; long delays negate the purpose of such appointments.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background on the appellant’s claims and committee decision. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5)
2. arguments regarding judicial decisions affecting the case. (Para 4)
3. principles governing compassionate appointments. (Para 6)
4. court's reasoning against granting compassionate appointment. (Para 7)
5. dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Purkayastha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned Minutes dated 16.08.2022 passed by the State Level Committee whereby the claim of the petitioner had been rejected.

3. This Court has duly perused Minutes of the State Level Committee Meeting for appointment on compassionate basis held on 16.08.2022 which is impugned in the instant proceedings and the reason why the petitioner's application was rejected was that the petitioner's father had less than three years balance service at the time his death which is in terms with paragraph No.1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that this Court vide the judgment and order dated 30.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No.1646/2021 struck down the Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. The learned counsel further submitted that the said judgment was challenged before the learned Division Bench of this Court by the State of Assam. The learned Division Bench of this Court vide the judgment and order dated 12.12.2025 in WA No.287/2023 had affirmed the judgment passed by this Court and further passed certain directions thereby directing the Respondent Authorities to reconsider the case of the respondents therein with an observation that such private respondents must not entertain any false hope that the concerned authorities shall consider the passage of time aspect seriously while assessing the suitability of the private respondents for compassionate appointment.

5. This Court has duly taken note of the materials on record and from the materials on record it is seen that the petitioner's father expired on 22.10.2008 leaving behind the petitioner and his mother.

6. The law is well settled as regards the compassionate appointment. It is no longer res integra that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment. The appointment on compassionate basis is made on the basis of a policy of the State to provide immediate succour to the bereaved family upon the death of the sole bread earner of the family. Therefore, appointment on compassionate basis being an exception to Article 16 of the Constitution, it has to be strictly in terms with the mandate of the policy of the Government. It is also well settled that such policy of the Government to grant appointment on compassionate basis does not confer any right. In this regard, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari , (2025) 5 SCC 712 wherein the various parameters have been duly laid down. Paragraph Nos.32 and 33 of the said judgment being relevant are reproduced hereinunder:

“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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top