Plabon Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Plabon Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief on the principal challenge to the SLC decision dated 14.05.2020; however, the Court observed and directed that if the petitioner applied pursuant to the notice dated 30.08.2025, the conclusions in this order shall not bar consideration of his case under that notice, such consideration to be made strictly appreciating the SLC's decision and reckoning Debabrata Tiwari (supra).

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment by the State Level Committee on the ground that there was no vacant post within the 5% quota (the Grade-IV cadre strength of 7 posts yielding less than one post) calls for interference by this Court. +1 more

Court's answer

The cadre strength of the Grade-IV cadre is 7 posts; 5% thereof works out to 0.35, which being below 1, there was no post vacant within the 5% quota mandated for compassionate appointment for consideration of the petitioner's case.

Ratio / Principle

No error is found in the reason assigned by the State Level Committee in its meeting dated 14.05.2020 for rejecting the petitioner's case; the decision requires no interference.

Key takeaways

Since the SLC's decision dated 14.05.2020 requires no interference, further direction for reconsideration of the petitioner's case by the State Level Committee is not called for.ratio¶49
Compassionate appointment is to be extended proximate to the time of the employee's death to mitigate the family's financial constraints; immediacy of appointment is the benchmark. Around 9 years have passed since the death of the petitioner's father on 26.11.2016, the family having sustained without compassionate appointment (following State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, (2023) SCC Online SC 219).ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compassionate appointment – Assam PHE Department – 5% quota – no vacancy. The petitioner's father, a Mechanic in the Public Health Engineering Department, died in harness on 26.11.2016; the District Level Committee recommended the petitioner for compassionate appointment on 28.02.2019 against an identified post, but the State Level Committee rejected his case on 14.05.2020 on the ground that the claim did not fall within the 5% quota for the Grade-IV post of Khalasi. Holding that the Grade-IV cadre strength is 7 posts and 5% thereof works out to 0.35 (below 1), the Court found no post vacant within the 5% quota and no error in the SLC's decision requiring interference. The Coordinate Bench directions in Abdul Kadir Bokshi v. State of Assam, 2025 (3) GLT 896 were held inapplicable absent interference; noting the lapse of around 9 years since the death, the Court reaffirmed that immediacy of compassionate appointment proximate to the death is the benchmark (State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, (2023) SCC Online SC 219). The Court observed that if the petitioner applied under the respondents' notice dated 30.08.2025, the conclusions herein would not bar his consideration thereunder, subject to appreciation of the SLC decision and the Debabrata Tiwari ruling. Writ petition disposed of. (Gauhati High Court, WP(C)/5145/2023, decided 08/12/2025, N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)

Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010192952023

undefined

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

Case No. : WP(C)/5145/2023

PLABON DAS

S/O- LATE SRI HARIPADA DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAYABARI, POTILLABAZAR, PS- KARIMGANJ, DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN- 788709

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPATT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENGINEERING, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENGINEERING WATER ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-08

3:THE CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06

4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE (DLC) REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF KARIMGANJ DISTRICT DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENGINEERING KARIMGANJ

Page No.# 2/7

PO AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, S. TALUKDAR

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E, GA, ASSAM

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

ORDER

08/12/2025

Heard Mr. H R Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Public Health Engineering Department appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5 and Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

2. The petitioner in the present proceedings has prayed for a direction upon the State Level Committee (SLC) to select him for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the recommendations made in his case by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC) in its meeting held on 28.02.2019.

The petitioner’s father, Haripada Das, while serving as a Mechanic in the Public Health Engineering Department, had died-in-harness on 26.11.2016. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application on 06.01.2017 before the Departmental authorities for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The application as submitted by the petitioner came to be placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee and was considered by the said committee in its meeting held on 28.02.2019. The said committee, on such consideration, proceeded to recommend the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds against a post identified for the purpose.

The recommendations as made by the jurisdictional District Level Committee came to be forwarded for placing before the State Level Committee.

Page No.# 3/7

The State Level Committee, having not considered the case of the petitioner and no intimation in this connection being issued to him, the petitioner approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 6905/2022. This Court vide order dated 02.11.2022 proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioner before the State Level Committee in its next meeting.

The consideration as required to be made by the State Level Committee not having been made in terms of the directions passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 6905/2022, the petitioner, being aggrieved, again approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 2075/2023.

During the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent authorities had placed before this Court the minutes of the meeting of the State Level Committee dated 14.05.2020, wherein, the case of the petitioner, herein, on consideration, came to be rejected.

In view of the said development, this Court vide order dated 09.08.2023, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition, being WP(C) No. 2075/2023. Accordingly, the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceedings, assailing the decision of the State Level Committee arrived at in its meeting held on 14.05.2020, in so far as rejection of the case of the petitioner, herein, is concerned.

3. Mr. H R Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner, being recommended by the District Level Committee in its meeting held on 28.02.2019 for appointment on compassionate grounds and such recommendation being so made against an identified sanctioned vacant post, the State Level Committee could not have proceeded to reject the case of the petitioner on the ground that there was no vacant post available.

Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner, herein, was diligently pursuing his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds and prior to the institution of the present proceeding, he had instituted two other proceedings before this Court on the same ground. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits

Page No.# 4/7

that the recommendations made by the State Level Committee having been so made without properly appreciating the recommendations made in favour of the petitioner by the District Level Committee, the rejection of the case of the petitioner, herein, by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 14.05.2020 would mandate an interference by this Court.

Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondent authorities had during the pendency of the present proceedings issued an Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 in supersession of the policy relating to compassionate appointment, notified by the Government of Assam vide Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. He submits that the persons similarly situated like the petitioner, herein, had assailed the said Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 before this Court by way of instituting writ petitions, one of which is WP(C) No. 342/2025. He further submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased vide judgment dated 03.04.2025 rendered in the case of Abdul Kadir Bokshi & Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Others and other analogous writ petitions, reported in 2025 (3) GLT 896 upon appreciating the concession granted in the matter by the State respondents, permitted the cases of the petitioners, therein, to be considered by the State Level Committee/District Level Committee, as the case may be, on its own merits inspite of the issuance of the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024. He submits that the petitioner’s case, being similarly placed would also be required to be remanded back to the State Level Committee for a fresh consideration by taking into account the recommendations made in favour of the petitioner by the jurisdictional District Level Committee.

4. Per contra, Mr. D Gogoi as well as Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned counsels, representing the respondent Departments have submitted that a perusal of the Minutes of the State Level Committee meeting held on 14.05.2020 would reveal that the case of the petitioner, herein, was rejected, on it being found to not fall within the 5% quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds in relation to the Grade-IV post of Khalasi, existing in the establishment, wherein, the father of the petitioner had served before his death in harness.

5. This Court has been apprised by the learned counsels for the respondents that in the

Page No.# 5/7

establishment of the respondent No. 5, there exist 7 posts of Grade-IV of Khalasi and 5% thereof not forming 1 post, the case of the petitioner cannot be held to be covered by the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds and accordingly, no vacancy being available for consideration of the case of the petitioner, the rejection of his case by the State Level Committee would not mandate an interference from this Court.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

7. The facts, noticed herein above, are not in dispute.

8. The case of the petitioner on being considered by the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 28.02.2019, a recommendation in his favour came to be made. The said recommendation having not been considered by the State Level Committee, proceedings came to be instituted before this Court, as noticed hereinabove. However, the case of the petitioner was considered by the SLC in its meeting held on 14.05.2020 and therein, on consideration of the claim of the petitioner, his case came to be rejected on the ground that it does not fall within the 5% cadre strength as mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds.

9. This Court in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties has examined the reasons assigned by the State Level Committee for rejection of the case of the petitioner, herein. This Court finds that the cadre strength of the cadre of Grade-IV is 7 posts. 5% of the 7 posts would work out to 0.35. The same being below 1, it has to be held that there was no post vacant within the 5% quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds, for consideration of the case of the petitioner for such appointment.

10. Accordingly, this Court does not find any error with the reason as assigned by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 14.05.2020 for the purpose of rejecting the case of the petitioner, herein, for appointment on compassionate grounds.

11. Having drawn the above conclusion, this Court would examine the contentions raised by the petitioner that his case would also be required to be considered afresh by the State

Page No.# 6/7

Level Committee in terms of the directions passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Kadir Bokshi (supra).

12. This Court has perused the directions passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the above noted case and finds that the same would be mandated to be applied in case of the petitioner, only, if this Court is of the considered view that the decision rendered in the case of the petitioner, herein, by the State Level Committee would mandate an interference.

13. This Court having already concluded that the decision of the State Level Committee arrived at in respect of the petitioner in its meeting held on 14.05.2020 requires no interference, further direction for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner by the State Level Committee would not be called for.

14. At this stage, it is also to be noted that the father of the petitioner had died-inharness on 26.11.2016, around 9 (nine) years have passed on, since the date of death of the father of the petitioner. It is a settled position of law that an appointment on compassionate grounds is to be extended to the family of a deceased Government employee proximate to the time of his death so as to mitigate the financial constraints faced by the family on the sudden death of the bread earner of the family. Accordingly, immediacy of appointment on compassionate grounds proximate to the time of death of the Government servant is the Bench Mark that is to be followed in the matter. In the present case, it is seen that the petitioner and his family members have sustained for the last around 9 (nine) years without any one of them being extended with an appointment on compassionate grounds. [Refer decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors., reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219].

15. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a submission that in pursuance to the direction passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Kadir Bokshi (supra), the respondents have issued a notice dated 30.08.2025 , inviting applications from persons for consideration of their cases for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to apply in pursuance to the said Notification.

Page No.# 7/7

16. The said position having come to the notice of this Court, this Court observes that in the event the petitioner has submitted his application in pursuance to the notice dated 30.08.2025, the conclusions drawn by this Court, hereinabove, shall not be bar the consideration of the case of the petitioner in terms of the said notice dated 30.08.2025. However, such consideration shall be made strictly appreciating the decision of the State Level Committee already arrived at in the matter in respect of the petitioner and also by reckoning the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra).

17. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Decision of the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 14.05.2020 rejecting the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate grounds, assailed in the present writ petition.¶30
State Level Committee (SLC) · 14.05.2020
Prior proceeding
The petitioner's father, Haripada Das, while serving as a Mechanic in the Public Health Engineering Department, died-in-harness on 26.11.2016.¶24
Prior proceeding
The petitioner submitted an application dated 06.01.2017 before the Departmental authorities seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.¶24
Prior proceeding
The District Level Committee considered the petitioner's case in its meeting held on 28.02.2019 and recommended him for compassionate appointment against an identified post.¶24
Prior proceeding
The recommendations of the District Level Committee were forwarded for placement before the State Level Committee.¶25
Prior proceeding
The SLC not having considered the case, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 6905/2022; by order dated 02.11.2022 this Court directed the respondents to place the case before the SLC in its next meeting.¶27
Prior proceeding
The direction in WP(C) No. 6905/2022 not having been complied with, the petitioner instituted WP(C) No. 2075/2023.¶28
Prior proceeding
During the pendency of WP(C) No. 2075/2023, the respondents placed before this Court the minutes of the SLC meeting dated 14.05.2020, whereby the petitioner's case was rejected.¶29
Prior proceeding
By order dated 09.08.2023, this Court disposed of WP(C) No. 2075/2023 in view of the said development.¶30
Prior proceeding
During pendency of the present proceedings, the respondents issued Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 superseding the compassionate appointment policy notified vide Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 (as submitted by counsel for the petitioner).¶35
Prior proceeding
Persons similarly situated challenged the OM dated 18.09.2024 in writ petitions including WP(C) No. 342/2025; a Coordinate Bench, by judgment dated 03.04.2025 in Abdul Kadir Bokshi & Ors. v. State of Assam and Others, 2025 (3) GLT 896, permitted the petitioners therein to be considered by the SLC/DLC on their own merits notwithstanding the OM dated 18.09.2024.¶35
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the directions in Abdul Kadir Bokshi (supra), the respondents issued a notice dated 30.08.2025 inviting applications from persons for consideration of their cases for compassionate appointment; counsel submitted the petitioner is entitled to apply thereunder.¶51