Isabella Mariam

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a compassionate appointment claim. The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi refused to interfere with the decision of the State Level Committee (SLC) rejecting the petitioner's candidature, citing a delay of over nine years from the death of the government employee concerned.

The Court categorically recorded that "any further direction for consideration of the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground after a period of more than 9 years from the death of a government servant would not be in sync with the objective of the scheme for compassionate appointment."

Also Read: Contractual service must be counted for pension | Supreme Court invokes Rule 17 CCS | Orders Union to define option mechanism for regularised employees

The petitioner, Jayanti Medhi, widow of Late Paresh Medhi, approached the Gauhati High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of her application for compassionate appointment by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on December 31, 2018. Her husband was employed as a Muster Roll Worker in the Public Works Department (PWD), Government of Assam, and died in harness on February 29, 2016.

It was the petitioner's claim that her late husband’s services were regularized and he had been issued an identity card numbered J/93/12 dated November 1, 1993. Following his demise, she applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on September 23, 2016. Her application was recommended by the District Level Committee (DLC) but later rejected by the SLC.

Counsel for the petitioner, Shri K. Bhuyan, submitted that the rejection of the petitioner’s application was arbitrary and unreasonable. He argued that the application was made within the prescribed period and thus should not have been rejected on grounds of delay in comparison to other applicants. He stressed that the recommendation by the DLC was indicative of a valid claim.

Representing the State of Assam, Additional Senior Government Advocate Shri J.K. Goswami contended that the rejection by the SLC was based on valid and germane reasons. He pointed out the delay in approaching the Court as well as the applicability of the recent Supreme Court decision in State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari

Ms. S. Sarma, Standing Counsel for the PWD, aligned with the submissions of the State, pointing out that more than nine years had passed since the death of the petitioner's husband and that the fundamental objective of providing immediate succor to bereaved families would be defeated by entertaining such a delayed claim.

The Court examined the materials placed before it and recorded that the death occurred in February 2016 and the rejection of the application took place in December 2018. The writ petition, however, was filed only in November 2021. Although the petitioner claimed to have made a representation in May 2019, the Court found no supporting record confirming receipt by authorities and noted the delay remained unexplained.

The Gauhati High Court critically examined the objective and legal framework underlying compassionate appointments. It referred extensively to the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari (2023), reiterating that such appointments are exceptional in nature and do not constitute a vested right.

Quoting from the apex court’s decision, the Bench observed: "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... 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."

The Court further recorded: "Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over."

On the relevance of delay, the Court cited paragraph 7.5 of the Debabrata Tiwari judgment: "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."

The judgment continued: "The financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts... are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family... was able to sustain themselves... Granting compassionate appointment in such a case... would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession."

Also Read: Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismisses plea against charge framing | Trial judges must write or dictate interim orders themselves says Court

In light of the legal position clarified by the Supreme Court, the Gauhati High Court found that the delay of over nine years rendered the petitioner’s claim incompatible with the core objectives of the compassionate appointment policy.

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court held: "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 more than 9 years from the death of a government servant would not be in sync with the objective of the scheme for compassionate appointment."

Accordingly, the writ petition stood dismissed without any relief granted.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Shri K. Bhuyan

For the Respondents: Shri J.K. Goswami, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam; Ms. S. Sarma, Standing Counsel, PWD

Case Title: Jayanti Medhi vs. The State of Assam and 4 Ors

Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AS:5546

Case Number: WP(C)/5901/2021

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi

[Read/Download order]