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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 11417

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
MS. PHEJIN H. KONYAK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS – Respondent
WP(C) 247 / 2025



##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC020008822025 2026:GAU-NL:264

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

KOHIMA BENCH

Case No. : WP(C)/247/2025

MS. PHEJIN H. KONYAK

D/O LATE C. HONKA KONYAK, MON TOWN, DIST- MON,

NAGALAND

VERSUS

STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NAGALAND,

NAGALAND KOHIMA

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY

HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

NAGALAND KOHIMA

3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY

PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT

NAGALAND KOHIMA

4:THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR

HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

NAGALAND KOHIMA

5:THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER

MON NAGALAND

Advocate for the Petitioner : LAKNYEI PHOM, M BANGLI PHOM,KIM

PIENYU,REBECCA

Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL,

##PAGE2##

Page No.# 2/4

BEFORE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

ORDER

14/05/2026

Heard Mr. Laknyei Phom, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard

Mr. Ajungli Sangtam, learned Government Advocate for the State

respondents.

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has prayed

for a direction upon the respondent authorities for consideration of her

case for appointment on compassionate ground, in accordance with the

scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds in vogue in the State.

3. The father of the petitioner Shri. C. Honka Konyak, while working as a

Surveillance Worker, in the establishment of Chief Medical Officer (CMO),

Mon, Nagaland, had died in harness on 16.09.2024. The petitioner,

thereafter, submitted a representation dated 20.09.2024, praying for

consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The

case of the petitioner not being considered by the concerned authorities

for appointment on compassionate grounds, 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 learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the

consideration required to be extended to a applicant for appointment on

compassionate grounds is required to be so extended in terms of the

##PAGE3##

Page No.# 3/4

provisions of a Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015, read with an

Addendum dated 09.04.2019. It is not disputed that the father of the

petitioner was a regular government servant and had died in harness on

16.09.2024. It is also not disputed that proximate to the time of death of

her father, the petitioner had submitted an application for consideration of

her case for appointment on compassionate grounds.

6. In terms of the scheme as brought into effect vide the Office

Memorandum dated 17.09.2015, appointment on compassionate ground is

permissible to be made against Group-C and Group-D post and such

appointments is permissible to be made to the extent of 50% of the

vacancies arising in the said cadres during a year. The scheme also

provides that on receipt of the applications from the claimants for

appointment on compassionate grounds, the same is to be compiled and a

list prepared by placing the claimants therein, by reckoning the date of

death of the government servant, involved.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent on instructions has submitted

that presently 2 (two) vacancies are available within the quota mandated

for appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, he submits that

the claimants for such appointment in the Department, would be

considered in terms of their placement in the list so complied in the

matter. It is also projected that the name of the petitioner, herein, is

placed at Sl. No. 8 of the said list and her case would also be considered

as and when her turn so comes, considering the availability of the vacant

posts.

##PAGE4##

Page No.# 4/4

8. In the present proceedings, the petitioner has not assailed the Office

Memorandum dated 17.09.2015, read with the Addendum dated

09.04.2019. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner would now be required

to be considered strictly in accordance with the scheme brought into

operation in this connection, vide the said Office Memo

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