Writ petition seeking compassionate appointment in the Water Resources Department following the father's death-in-harness in 2003, challenging rejection dated 30.10.2021. The court held the claim stale after two decades and dismissed it relying on Supreme Court precedent on delay in compassionate appointments.
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
GAHC010215732022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6883/2022
MANU GURUNG
S/O- LATE GAU PRASAD GURUNG, R/O- VILL.- SANTI NAGAR (NEPALI BASTI), P.O. BALADMARI, P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-03.
3:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER MECHANICAL ZONE WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI-29.
4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GUWAHATI MECHANICAL DIVISION WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI-29.
Page No.# 2/6
B E F O R E
Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Advocate for the petitioner : Shri M. M. Zaman, Advocate. Advocate for the respondents : Shri. A. Chakrabory, GA. Shri C. Sarma, Advocate, Water Resources Department. Date of hearing : 16.07.2024 Date of Judgment : 16.07.2024
Judgment & Order
Heard Shri M. M. Zaman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri A. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel and Shri C. Sarma, learned counsel representing the Water Resources Department.
2. The writ petition has been instituted with a claim for appointment on compassionate ground.
3. The facts projected in the petition is that the father of the petitioner, Gau Prasad Gurung, who was working as a Grade-IV employee in the Water Resources Department at Goalpara had died-in-harness on 14.01.2003 leaving behind his family including the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 27.06.2003. However, the petitioner could come to learn that his candidature was rejected. The petitioner had accordingly filed WP(C) No. 6424/2017 before this Court in which there was an order dated 27.02.2019 to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of 3 months. As according to the petitioner, no action was taken, he had filed Contempt Cas(C) No. 154/2021. In the said proceeding, it was however revealed that a minutes of meeting was held on 30.10.2021 in which the case of
Page No.# 3/6
the petitioner was rejected. The contempt case was accordingly closed on 06.04.2022. It is the order of rejection dated 30.10.2021 which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.
4. Shri Zaman, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the rejection though based on the ground that the post of Bhandari is a single cadre post, there were other vacancies in Gr-IV where the petitioner could have been considered. In this connection, he has drawn the attention of this Court to a document annexed as Annexure-8 which is a part of certain replies obtained by the RTI and has contended that as on 21.06.2022, 58 numbers of vacancies were existing in the Gr-IV under the Office of the Gauhati Mechanical Division. He has also submitted that under the notification holding the field, there is a provision to consider such appointment in the vacancies existing any other office and that exercise has not been done.
5. Shri Chakraborty, the learned State Counsel has however submitted that the death of the government servant being in the year 2003, any consideration for appointment on compassionate ground after about two decades would not be in consonance with the objectives of the scheme. He submits that though the contention of the petitioner is that vacancies are existing, the mere existence of vacancies would not be crucial and what would be crucial is whether vacancies under the 5% quota is available. The learned counsel submits that in any case the claim for appointment is a stale one and cannot be considered at this point of time. The learned State Counsel has also defended the order dated 30.10.2021 by submitting that the reasons assigned are in accordance with law as the post of Bhandari is a single cadre post.
6. Shri Chakraborty, the learned State Counsel in support of his submission
Page No.# 4/6
has relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs Debabrata Tiwari reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219 .
7. Shri Sarma, the learned counsel representing the Department has endorsed the submission of the learned State Counsel.
8. The rival contentions have been duly considered. The law relating to compassionate appointment is well settled. Such appointment is an exception to general mode/method of recruitment wherein an exception is carved out to give immediate succour to a bereaved family which has lost the sole breadwinner who was a government servant. The essence of such appointment is of immediate nature and the said essence would be lost by efflux of time.
9. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the death of the government employee was in the year 2003 and in the meantime, two decades have passed. The first approach of the petitioner to this Court was also after the period of about 14 years in the year 2017. There is no acceptable or cogent reasons explaining the delay and the mere submission of representation would not extend the time. As on today, more than 20 years have passed and any direction towards consideration of the claim of the petitioner further would not be in sync with the claim of compassionate appointment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) has laid down as follows:
“7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge:
(i) That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure
Page No.# 5/6
from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions 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.
(ii) Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
(iii) 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.
(iv) That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.
(v) In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members together with the income from any other source.”
10 . This Court has noticed that on the aspect of delay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case while examining the said aspect from the context of the scheme has also laid down that even if the delay is on account of the
Page No.# 6/6
authorities, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. The relevant part as observed in paragraph 7.5 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below:-
11. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), no relief can be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a claim for appointment on compassionate ground can be entertained more than two decades after the government servant's death in harness.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of West Bengal Vs Debabrata TiwariRelied on¶9
(2023) SCC Online SC 219 · Who else cites this
Manu Gurung
The State of Assam and 4 Ors represented by the Secretary, Water Resource Department
The Chief Engineer Water Resource Department Chandmari Guwahati
The Additional Chief Engineer Mechanical Zone Water Resource Department Guwahati
The Executive Engineer Guwahati Mechanical Division Water Resource Department Guwahati
The District Level Selection Committee represented by the Deputy Commissioner Kamrup(M) Guwahati
Sanjay Kumar Medhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
