Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Reserved For Future | Gauhati High Court Dismisses Writ After Seventeen-Year Delay Holding That The Sense Of Immediacy Is Diluted And Lost
Sanchayita Lahkar
In a recent judgment, the Gauhati High Court, Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment nearly 17 years after the demise of the petitioner’s father. The Court decisively held that such appointments are designed to provide "immediate succor to a bereaved family" and not to serve as an alternate means of employment after an inordinate delay. The Bench further recorded that the State of Assam has no government circular permitting minors to apply for compassionate appointments at a belated stage.
The petitioner, Dwipjyoti Patowary, son of Late Ranjit Patowary, a Constable under the Establishment of the Sr. Superintendent of Police, City Guwahati, Kamrup (M), Assam, approached the Court challenging the rejection of his compassionate appointment application. His father passed away on 12.06.2008, at which time the petitioner was a minor. Upon attaining majority, his mother submitted an application on 11.05.2016 for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the District Level Committee (DLC) on 02.04.2018 due to the delayed submission.
Despite submitting a representation on 02.11.2019, there was no response from the authorities, leading to the filing of the present writ petition. The petitioner contended that the delay was solely because he was a minor at the time of his father’s death and was only eligible to apply after attaining majority.
Opposing the petition, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Shri R. Dhar, argued that the objective of compassionate appointments is to provide "immediate relief to a bereaved family which has lost its sole breadwinner." Stating the significant lapse of time, it was submitted that "almost 17 years have passed, and the financial distress the family might have faced immediately after the death has already been addressed or overcome." The counsel also placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari [AIR 2023 SC 1467] and the Gauhati High Court’s earlier judgement in WP(C)/6916/2023 (Tapan Saikia Vs. the Chief Secretary & Ors.).
It was further submitted that as per the legal position in the State of Assam, there is no provision permitting minors to make a delayed application for compassionate appointment. The learned State Counsel underscored that allowing such a claim after 17 years would defeat the purpose and objective of the compassionate appointment scheme.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi examined the case records and judicial precedents. The Court recorded that the death occurred on 12.06.2008, while the application for appointment was made in 2016, a delay of nearly eight years after the incident.
Quoting the Supreme Court judgment in Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar [(2000) 7 SCC 192], the Court noted: "There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief."
The Court further observed: "Issuing a direction to consider now would not be in consonance with the scheme."
It held that the objective of compassionate appointment is to address sudden financial crises and cannot be treated as a source of future employment. The Bench referred extensively to the Supreme Court judgement in Debabrata Tiwari (supra), summarizing the following key principles:
- Compassionate appointment makes a departure from general recruitment processes and is meant only to enable the bereaved family to overcome sudden financial crises.
- It is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future.
- Compassionate employment cannot be claimed after a lapse of time when the crisis has already passed.
- In determining financial crisis, factors such as the family’s income, liabilities, terminal benefits received, and dependency status must be considered.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s case clearly did not satisfy these criteria, especially given the lapse of 17 years.
Additionally, the Court cited paragraph 7.5 of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Debabrata Tiwari (supra), observing: "In a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost."
Justice Medhi concluded that granting compassionate appointment after such a prolonged delay would contravene the purpose of the scheme and effectively convert it into a right of succession, which is contrary to the Constitution.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court categorically stated:
"This Court has no other option but to hold that any further direction for consideration of the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground after a period of about 17 years from the death of a government servant would not be in sync with the objective of the scheme for compassionate appointment."
No costs were awarded.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Shri BK Das
For the Respondents: Shri R. Dhar, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam
Case Title: Dwipjyoti Patowary Vs. The State of Assam and 4 Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024: GAU-AS:11225
Case Number: WP(C)/1315/2021
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi
[Read/Download order]
