Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 9015
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
UDIT NARAYAN PURKAYASTHA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS – Respondent
WP(C) / 1790 / 2022
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Compassionate Appointment
Headnote
(B) Discrimination - State Level Committee (SLC) cannot apply different yardsticks while considering claims of similarly situated applicants - Rejection of one claim on ground of application having spent its force and no vacancy, while recommending another with similar delay and vacancy situation is arbitrary and discriminatory. (Paras 3, 5, 7)
(C) Compensation - Where a claim for compassionate appointment is not considered in the manner required due to discriminatory treatment, but the claim has become stale by long lapse of time (13 years), the Court may award compensation for the deprivation caused rather than ordering fresh consideration. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner's father died-in-harness on 14-05-2012. The petitioner promptly applied on 20-07-2012 for compassionate appointment. The District Level Committee (DLC) recommended his case on 28-02-2014. However, the State Level Committee (SLC) in its meeting on 03-10-2019 rejected his claim on the ground that two years had lapsed from the date of application and there were no vacancies available. Simultaneously, the SLC recommended the case of respondent No. 7 (whose husband died on 10-08-2013 and who also applied promptly) for appointment, noting that vacancies were available and her application had not spent its force. The respondent No. 7 was appointed on 18-11-2021. The SLC applied two different yardsticks to the petitioner and respondent No. 7.
Findings of Court:
The explanation offered by the respondents was unsatisfactory. The same reasoning regarding lapse of two years and vacancy would apply equally to respondent No. 7. The petitioner was discriminated against. However, since 13 years had passed since the father's death, the immediacy required for compassionate appointment was lost and the claim had become stale. The Court did not interfere with the appointment of respondent No. 7 who had completed 4 years of service. Instead, the Court directed payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the deprivation caused.
Issues: (i) Whether the State Level Committee discriminated against the petitioner by applying different yardsticks while considering his claim and that of respondent No. 7? (ii) Whether the petitioner could be granted compassionate appointment after a long lapse of time (13 years)?
Ratio Decidendi: The policy for compassionate appointment mandates that applications remaining pending for two years due to want of vacancy are deemed to have spent their force. The SLC must apply uniform criteria to similarly situated applicants. Discriminatory treatment renders the decision arbitrary. However, the very purpose of compassionate appointment is immediate relief; a claim becomes stale after a long lapse of time, and the Court will not direct reconsideration. In such cases, compensation may be awarded for the discrimination suffered. Result : The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to pay the petitioner Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation within two months. The appointment of respondent No. 7 is not interfered with.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R P Sarmah, M R Adhikari, S P Chetry
For the Respondents:Government Advocate Assam, K Malakar (R-7), A Bhattacharjee (R-7), A Bhattacharya (R-7)
JUDGMENT& ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Konwar, learned Addl. AG, Assam appearing for the State/ respondent and Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7.
2. The petitioner by way of the present application has assailed the decision of the State Level Committee (SLC) arrived at in its meeting held on 03-10-2019, towards rejecting his claim for appointment on compassionate ground, while proceeding to recommend the case of the respondent No. 7 for such appointment. The petitioner has also assailed the appointment effected in respect of the respondent No. 7 on
compassionate grounds, on 18-11-2021.
3. The father of the petitioner, herein, Uday Sankar Purkayastha while working as a Jugali in the Regional office of the Department of Information & Public Relations, Barak Valley Region, Silchar, died-in-harness on 14-05-2012. The petitioner had submitted his application for being considered for appointment on compassionate grounds against any Gr-IV vacant post on 20-07-2012.
The District Level Committee (DLC) on being forwarded with the claim made by the petitioner, considered the same and recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment against a vacant post by the DLC in its meeting held on 28-02-2014. In the said meeting, the claim of the respondent No. 7, herein, Smti. Seema Deb was also considered, however, no recommendation came to be made in respect of the respondent No. 7 on account of non-availability of vacancy. The materials brought on record reveals that the subsequently the District Level Committee (DLC) had also made a recommendation in favour of the respondent No. 7, herein, in its meeting held on 23-12-2014. The recommendation made in respect of the petitioner, herein, as well as that made in respect of the respondent No. 7 came to be placed before the SLC in its meeting held on 03-10-2019. The SLC upon considering the case of the petitioner, herein, by noticing that 02 (two) years having lapsed from the date of submission of the application by the petitioner, the same having spent its force and there being no vacancy available during the period, proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner, herein. The SLC, thereafter, considered the claim of the respondent No. 7 and proceeded to draw the following conclusions:-
“The SLC examined the cases of (1) ……………………., (2) Seema Deb, W/o Lt. Ashutosh Deb, Unit Boy, who expired on 10.08.2013, (3) …………………, (4)………………………, (5) ……………………… and the Committee after careful examination of their cases found that there were vacancies available during that period and also the applicants had not spent their force for more than 2 years. Hence, the committee recommended their cases for appointment on compassionate ground in the post of Grade-IV.”
A perusal of the said decision would reveal the SLC in its meeting held on 03-10-2019, had applied two different yardsticks while considering the claim of the petitioner, herein, and while considering the claim of the respondent No. 7.
4. It is an admitted position that the father of the petitioner had expired on 14-05-2012 and he had, thereafter, promptly submitted an application. Similarly the husband of the respondent No. 7 had expired on 19-06-2013 and thereafter, she had also promptly submitted an application claiming appointment on compassionate ground. The applications field by the petitioner and the respondent No. 7, as on the date, when it was considered by the SLC, admittedly more than 02 (two) years had lapsed, since the date they were so preferred. This Court on a perusal of the decision of the SLC arrived at in its meeting held on 03-10-2019, finds that for the purpose of rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground had projected that his application having remained pending for 02 (two) years, the same had spent its force and also projected that there were no vacancies available during the period for consideration of his case
