Writ petition challenging rejection of compassionate appointment application due to delay. Court held petitioner filed application beyond one-year limitation and thus dismissal of petition affirmed.
Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merit; no interference with District Level Committee's decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010021472020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/640/2020
REJAN HUSSAIN LASKAR
S/O- LT. RABIZUL HOQUE LASKAR, VILL. NIZ RUPAIBALI, P.O.HAZARIGRAM BAZAR, P.S. LAKHIPUR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY.-06.
2:THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (A) ASSAM ULUBARI GHY.-7. 3:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE CACHAR ASSAM. 4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER CACHAR ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J LASKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/6
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
ORDER
12-02-2020
Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Roy, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
2. Being aggrieved with the decision of the District Level Committee (DLC) for compassionate appointment, Cachar, Silchar dated 09.07.2019 rejecting the case of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment under the die-in-harness Scheme, the petitioner, Rejan Hussain Laskar has filed this writ petition, challenging the said decision dated 09.07.2019 of the DLC, Cachar.
3. Rabizul Hoque Laskar, father of the petitioner was an Armed Branch Constable serving at Police Reserve, Cachar, Silchar under the Superintendent of Police, Cachar, Silchar. He met with a road traffic accident on 17.04.2014 and expired due to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. Said Rabizul Hoque Laskar, who died-inharness, at the time of his death in April, 2014, left behind his wife and 4 children including the petitioner.
4. After passing his HSSLC (10+2) examination, the petitioner for the first time on 07.03.2019 submitted an application for his appointment on compassionate ground under the Die-in-Harness Scheme before the Superintendent of Police, Cachar, Silchar in Grade-III post under the said authority.
5. The DLC for compassionate appointment, Cachar, Silchar in its meeting held on 09.07.2019 rejected the claim of the petitioner regarding appointment on compassionate ground finding that petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment is after the stipulated period of one year from the date of death of the
Page No.# 3/6
concerned Government employee, i.e., father of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that said decision dated 09.07.2019 of the DLC, Cachar is illegal and prayed to set aside the same and to direct the DLC, Cachar, Silchar to consider his case afresh.
6. The matter pertaining to compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme of the Government employee of the State flows from its policy decision. It is well settled that the basis of compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme is only to see that the family of the deceased Government Employee gets immediate relief, as on the sudden death of the said bread earner, his/her family may suffer from financial hardship.
7. In the case of Faziron Nessa Vs. State of Assam and Others and other connected cases, that was decided on 02.07.2010 and reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340 a coordinate Bench of this Court have held that the time limit of submission of application form for compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme shall be 12 (twelve) months, i.e., one year from the date of death of the concerned Government employee.
8. The maximum time limit for application for appointment on compassionate ground under the die-in-harness Scheme of the State, as been held by the Court in the case of Faziron Nessa (supra) as 12 (twelve) months from the date of death of Government employee, being decided on 02.07.2010, have attained its finality.
9. Regarding compassionate appointment including death of a Government employee while in service (die-in-harness), the State Government in its Personnel (B) Department, superseding all its earlier Office Memorandums/Notifications/Circulars etc., in that regard, issued an Office Memorandum No. ABP.50/2006/Pt/182 dated 01.06.2015, which is still in force for such Government employees died-in-harness upto 31.12.2016, at its Principle/Clause 3 clearly indicate that — Every eligible dependent seeking appointment under this Office Memorandum shall make an application for appointment on compassionate grounds in the prescribed form with all enclosures within one year from the date of death or acceptance of retirement of the
Page No.# 4/6
employee with consent letter of the retired employee, as the case may be. The said time limit of one year incorporated in the said Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 is on the basis of the said judgment of the Court in the Case of Faziron Nessa(supra).
10. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Bihar reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192 the Hon’ble Apex Court have settled the law that no such reservation for appointment on compassionate ground can be made so that a minor after attaining the age of majority can apply for such compassionate appointment, unless there are some specific provisions in such policy decision or Rules of recruitment.
11. In the case of Jagdish Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar & Another reported in (1996) 1 SCC 301 the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that the claim with regard to compassionate appointment made after a long period of time by a minor on attaining the age of majority, after the death of the concerned Government employee, is not entitled for such claim.
12. It is well settled that the policy decision of the State Government for compassionate appointment is to give immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased Government employee who is in the need of the same. There is no such policy of the State Government regarding compassionate appointment stipulating and/or enabling a minor son or daughter of a Government employee, who dies in harness, to apply for his/her appointment on compassionate ground on attaining the age of majority.
13. In the case in hand, the petitioner applied for his compassionate appointment on 07.03.2019. From his said application for compassionate appointment, annexed to this writ petition as Annexure-A, it is seen that the date of birth of the petitioner was 01.01.2000, whereas, date of death of the father of the petitioner was 17.04.2014. As such, at the time of death of his father on 17.04.2014, the petitioner was 14 years 3 months 16 days. Considering his date of birth as 01.01.2000, the petitioner attained the age of majority of 18 years on 01.01.2018, whereas, he filed his application for
Page No.# 5/6
compassionate appointment on 07.03.2019 after more than one year three months on attaining the age of majority.
14. It is well settled that — the Compassionate Appointment is given as an immediate measure only to get over the death of the bread earner at that point of time and there cannot be any vested right on such appointment except that such consideration can only be done as per prevailing policy. After passage of long time, the sense of immediacy gets lost. The very raison d’etre for giving compassionate appointment or compassionate benefit is lost once the immediacy has died down. Once the long time passed by, the compassionate element stands extinguished. A family who could survive for long years would not be entitled to any compassionate benefit since compassionate benefit is not a largesse nor it is a rule in the employment.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court have also held that appointment on compassionate ground under the Die-in-Harness Scheme is not a matter of right and there cannot be any rule to take advantage of any such scheme of compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme after several years.
16. As discussed above and since the law regarding appointment on compassionate ground under the die-in-harness Scheme is well settled, the application of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment being beyond the time limit of one year as laid down in the case of Faziron Nessa (supra) as well as the concerned Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, noted above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned decision of the District Level Committee for compassionate appointment, Cachar, Silchar dated 09.07.2019 in rejecting the case of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment under the die-in-harness Scheme, as his application for such compassionate appointment was beyond one year period, does not call for any interference in exercise of the power of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition, no such
Page No.# 6/6
direction can be issued to the respondents herein, in violation of the settled law.
17. Accordingly, this writ petition, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a delayed application for compassionate appointment after the one-year limitation period is maintainable.
Whether a minor son attaining majority can apply for compassionate appointment after the death of the breadwinner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Faziron Nessa Vs. State of Assam and OthersRelied on¶7
2010 (4) GLT 340
Sanjay Kumar Vs State of BiharRelied on¶10
(2000) 7 SCC 192 · Who else cites this
Jagdish Prasad Vs The State Of BiharRelied on¶11
(1996) 1 SCC 301 · Who else cites this
Rejan Hussain Laskar
The State of Assam
Comm. and Secy. to the Govt. of Assam
Addl. Director General of Police (A) Assam
Supdt. of Police Cachar
Dy. Commissioner Cachar
Manash Ranjan Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
