Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after significant delays, as it undermines the urgency intended by the provisions for financial distress relief.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. D.P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in both the writ petitions and Ms. M.M. Kataki, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents in both the writ petitions.

2. The petitioners herein have approached this Court seeking directions upon the Respondent Authorities for consideration of their case for appointment on compassionate grounds upon the death of their respective fathers who died in harness.

3. This Court finds it pertinent to briefly note down the facts in each case.

WP(C) No.2180/2023:

4. The Petitioner herein as on date is about 42 years old. His father who was serving as a Peon, Grade-IV in the Office of the District Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Officer, Bongaigaon expired on 11.07.2013 leaving behind the Petitioner, his mother, one younger brother and three sisters. It is stated at Paragraph No.6 of the writ petition that the Petitioner submitted an application in the year 2013 itself in the prescribed format praying for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the said application is not enclosed. It is also claimed by the Petitioner that the District Level Committee had recommended the case of the Petitioner. However, the State Level Committee on 30.12.2015 rejected the application of the Petitioner on the ground that there was no vacancy. It is the further case of the Petitioner that at that time, there were 27 numbers of vacancies in Grade-IV and the State Level Committee had recommended only 26 persons and one vacancy remained wherein the Petitioner could have been accommodated. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner, being aggrieved, approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.2559/2016. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 10.12.2018 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction upon the State Level Committee for reconsideration of the case of the Petitioner within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the said order. The petitioner's case thereupon was considered in the State Level Committee meeting held on 13.09.2022 along with other candidates. But the Petitioner’s candidature was rejected on the ground that his father had less than three years of service which was inconsistent with Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 and in that regard a Speaking Order was passed on 09.01.2023.

5. It is the further case of the Petitioner that this Court vide a judgment and order dated 30.01.2023 in a bunch of writ petitions held that Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 was unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioner had therefore approached this Court seeking a direction upon the Respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground due to the expiry of his father Late Khargeswar Ray. It is pertinent to mention that the Speaking Order dated 09.01.2023 however has not been put to challenge.

WPC No.2194/2023:

6. The Petitioner herein as on date is 38 years old. His father who was working as Veterinary Field Assistant (VFA) in the IDCP Centre at Kokrajhar BTC expired on 20.03.2013 leaving behind the Petitioner, his mother and one younger sister. The Petitioner submitted an application on 20.05.2013 and though the District Level Committee had recommended the case of the Petitioner on 13.03.2015 but the State Level Committee in its meeting dated 30.12.2015 had rejected the case of the Petitioner on account of non- availability of vacancy. The Petitioner