Dismissed¶34

Azarul Islam v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Apr 2025WP(C)/5741/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

compassionate appointment; death-in-harness; Assistant Teacher; Karimganj; Assam; elementary education; Grade-IV post; Class-IV qualification; nine-year delay; one application per family; multiplicity of claims; inheritance by line of succession; sense of immediacy lost; one-year application guideline; Family Pension; reservation of claim till majority; Debabrata Tiwari; Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh; Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar; writ petition dismissed; WP(C)/5741/2024; Gauhati High Court; order dated 07.04.2025; Justice Michael Zothankhuma.

What did the court decide?

There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner's mother was diligently pursuing her application for compassionate appointment with the authorities. ¶25

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether more than one application for compassionate appointment may be made by a family in respect of the death of one breadearner — here, whether, after the petitioner's mother applied on 05.11.2015, another application could be submitted on behalf of her son on 01.02.2024. +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner's mother was diligently pursuing her application for compassionate appointment with the authorities.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

A claim for compassionate appointment cannot be treated as a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession, which is contrary to the Constitution; a family may not prosecute multiple applications arising out of the death of one breadearner.

¶33

Key takeaways

The petitioner's case cannot be considered for compassionate appointment on an application filed nine years after the father's death, this being contrary to the Government guidelines which provide a one-year period, from the date of death of the deceased Government servant, for making an application for compassionate appointment.ratio¶33
No ground having been made out to allow the writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compassionate appointment — Gauhati High Court, WP(C)/5741/2024 (Michael Zothankhuma, J.), order dated 07.04.2025. Petitioner's father, an Assistant Teacher, died in harness on 01.09.2015; the mother's application of 05.11.2015 went unconsidered, and an application was thereafter made on behalf of the petitioner on 01.02.2024, which remained undecided. Held: (i) no family should be allowed to submit more than one application for compassionate appointment in respect of the death of one breadearner; (ii) nothing showed the mother diligently pursued her application; (iii) a claim filed nine years after death cannot be treated as a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession, being contrary to the Constitution, and violates the Government guideline providing a one-year period from the date of death for such applications — the sense of immediacy having ceased, the claim cannot be considered. Following this Court's order in Mahesh Kumar Boro vs. State of Assam [WP(C) 4879/2023] and applying The State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Others, 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 191; the principles in Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85, were relied upon, and Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 7 SCC 192 (no reservation of a vacancy till the claimant becomes a major), referred to. The issue of reservation of a claim until a minor attains majority was framed but resolved only through the delay-based reasoning. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010222822024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5741/2024

¶5

AZARUL ISLAM SON OF LATE ABDUL SATTAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BAITHAKHAL BASTI, P.O.- BAITHAKHAL BASTI, P.S.- PATHARKANDI, DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN- 788726.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06.

¶8

2:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 19.

¶9

3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT

¶10

DIST.- KARIMGANJ PIN- 788710.

¶11

4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710.

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

5:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I ALAM, MR. T SK

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, MR. P SAIKIA,GA, ASSAM

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

07.04.2025

¶19

1 . Heard Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Mr. P.K. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2, 4 & 5.

¶20

2 . The petitioner’s grievance is that his application for compassionate appointment submitted on 01.02.2024 has not been decided by the authorities till date. The case of the petitioner is that his father died in-harness on 01.09.2015. The petitioner’s mother thereafter applied for compassionate appointment on 05.11.2015. However, the application of the petitioner’s mother was not considered by the authorities. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner’s mother being a Class-IV pass, she was not qualified to be appointed to a Grade-IV post and accordingly, the petitioner’s mother had thereafter submitted an application dated 01.02.2024 on behalf of the petitioner for enabling the petitioner to be appointed on compassionate ground.

¶21

Page No.# 3/5

¶22

3 . The learned counsels for the respondents submit that more than 9 (nine) years have passed since the date of death of the petitioner’s father and it can be assumed that the petitioner and his mother have been able to tide over the sudden financial crisis that had been caused to the family, due to the death of the petitioner’s father. They also submit that the petitioner’s father had expired while being an Assistant Teacher in a school and as the petitioner’s mother was receiving Family Pension, it cannot be said that the petitioner and his mother were living a hand to mouth existence.

¶23

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶24

5. The issues that have been raised in the writ petition are twofold. Firstly, the petitioner’s mother having applied for compassionate appointment on 05.11.2015, the petitioner’s mother could not have submitted another application for compassionate appointment on behalf of her son on 01.02.2024. This is due to the fact that no family should be allowed to submit more than one application for compassionate appointment, or else it would lead to a multiplicity of claims by different family members in respect of the death of the one breadearner. The second issue is whether there can be a reservation of a claim for compassionate appointment, until a minor becomes a major.

¶25

6. In this case, there is nothing to show as to whether the petitioner’s mother was diligently pursuing her application for compassionate appointment with the authorities.

¶26

Page No.# 4/5

¶27

7. In the case of Mahesh Kumar Boro vs. State of Assam [WP(C) 4879/2023], this Court was considering the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment due to the death of his father, who had died-in-harness on 17.07.2016. This Court in it’s order dated 25.01.2024 passed in WP(C) 4879/2023 dismissed the writ petition on applying the ratio of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Others , reported in 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 191 . This Court in the above order dated 25.01.2024 passed in WP(C) 4879/2023 held that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner therein was diligently pursuing the application for compassionate appointment with the authorities and as the operation of the scheme for compassionate appointment was founded on consideration of immediacy, the object of the scheme had been defeated.

¶28

8. In the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), the Supreme Court has held that where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance. This would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration. It thus held that 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 a claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost.

¶29

9. The Supreme Court in Debabrata Tiwari (supra) also relied upon

¶30

Page No.# 5/5

¶31

another of it’s judgment in Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 85, wherein it held that appointments on compassionate ground after 14 years would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment, as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession, which is contrary to the Constitution.

¶32

10. In the case of Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar , reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192, the Supreme Court held that there cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time the claimant becomes a major, after a number of years.

¶33

11. On considering the fact that the petitioner’s mother had initially filed an application for compassionate appointment for herself and for the petitioner 9 years later, the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be treated as a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession, as it is contrary to the Constitution. This Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for compassionate appointment after filing an application 9 years after the death of his father, which is contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Government, which provides a one year period for making an application for compassionate appointment, w.e.f the date of death of the deceased Government servant.

¶34

12. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any ground to allow the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Azarul Islam v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azarul Islam v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukul Bhagabati Vs Narayan Konwar and 4 Ors.

Dipali Chaoudhury Vs Narayan Konwar and 4 Ors.

Anjali Boro Vs the State of Assam

Sabina Aktar Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Khirud Boruah Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Sandhya Rani Devi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.