Dismissed

Hirabati Bhagat v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 Sept 2026WP(C)/2179/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a Writ Petition seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The Court held that the claim was rendered stale due to a lapse of over fourteen years since the applicant's father died in harness, citing the doctrine of laches and reliance on a Supreme Court decision. The Court also noted that a subsequent Office Memorandum barred such claims for deaths prior to Marc

What did the court decide?

The present Writ Petition is dismissed; no order as to costs.

Hirabati Bhagat Vs the State of Assam and 5… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/19

GAHC010082602025

2026:GAU-AS:13616

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2179/2025

¶6

HIRABATI BHAGAT

¶7

D/O- LATE BIRENDRA CHANDRA BHAGAT, R/O- VILL.- DABABIL, P.O. CHOTTONILIBARI, P.S. RUNIKHATA, DIST. CHIRANG, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI6.

¶10

2:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AT KOKRAJHAR P.O. KOKRAJHAR HEAD OFFICE PIN- 783370 BTC ASSAM

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

¶12

BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL AT KOKRAJHAR P.O. KOKRAJHAR HEAD OFFICE PIN- 783370 BTC ASSAM

¶13

4:DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER CHIRANG DISTRICT AT KAJALGAON P.O. KAJALGAON PIN- 783385 DIST. CHIRANG BTC

¶14

Page No.# 2/19

¶15

ASSAM

¶16

5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE OF CHIRANG DISTRICT AT KAJALGAON P.O. KAJALGAON PIN- 783385 DIST. CHIRANG BTC ASSAM 6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SIDLI P.O. SIDLI PIN- 783373 DIST. CHIRANG ASSA

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, MS S A KHALIFA,MS F INTAZ

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, BTC,SC, ELEM. EDU

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 14.09.2026

¶23

Heard Mr. M A Sheikh, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also

¶24

heard Ms. B Bhuyan, Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. B Borah, Learned Standing Counsel, BTC, appearing for the Respondents.

¶25

The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has prayed for a direction upon the Respondent authorities, to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, expeditiously, in view of the directions passed by this Court, vide

¶26

Page No.# 3/19

¶27

order dated 21.07.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 3470/2023.

¶28

As projected in the Writ Petition, the father of the Petitioner Birendra Chandra Bhagat, while working as an Assistant Teacher in Subhajhar M.E School, Dist-Chirang, had died in harness on 27.11.2011. Pursuant to the date of death of the father of the Petitioner in harness, the Petitioner had on 15.02.2012, submitted an application for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The application submitted by the Petitioner was placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC) on various dates. However, no recommendation came to be made in favour of the Petitioner, for her appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶29

Being aggrieved, the Petitioner had approached this Court by way of instituting a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 5070/2021.

¶30

3.1 This Court, vide order dated 30.09.2021, proceeded to interfere with the recommendation made by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), in its meeting held on 29.03.2012 and remanded the matter to the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Chirang, to again place the application of the Petitioner before the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), in its next meeting, along with a copy of the Economic Status Report of the

¶31

Page No.# 4/19

¶32

Petitioner. The Petitioner, was thereafter, vide a communication dated 25.10.2021, informed that the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), in its meeting held on 26.03.2013, had not considered the case of the Petitioner. The jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), had rejected the case of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner had submitted her application for appointment on compassionate grounds, after 3 (three) months from the date of death of the Government Servant.

¶33

3.2 The Petitioner, being aggrieved, had again approached this Court by way of instituting a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 6890/2021. This Court, vide order dated 10.02.2022, proceeded to dispose of the said Writ Petition by interfering with the decision arrived at by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), in its meeting held on 26.03.2013, in respect of the Petitioner, by referring to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 GLT 674 and Faziron Nessa Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in (2010) 4 GLT 340 , wherein, this Court had prescribed a period of 1 (one) year from the date of death of the Government Servant, during which the application for appointment on compassionate grounds, would be permissible to be submitted.

¶34

Page No.# 5/19

¶35

3.3 The Petitioner further contends that her case was again

¶36

considered by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), in its meeting held on 02.06.2022. However, the case of the Petitioner was not recommended, in view of non-availability of a vacant post, within the 5% quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds

¶37

3.4 The Petitioner, being aggrieved, again approached this Court, by way of instituting a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 3470/2023. This Court, vide order dated 21.07.2023, noticing the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, proceeded to direct the Respondent authorities to consider the case of the Petitioner against any vacant post available in other departments. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), Chirang, to reconsider the case of the Petitioner, in terms of Clause 15 of the Officer Memorandum dated 01.06.2015.

¶38

3.5 The further consideration not being extended to the Petitioner by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), the Petitioner has instituted the present Writ Petition.

¶39

Mr. M A Sheikh, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that the claim of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was not considered by the jurisdictional

¶40

Page No.# 6/19

¶41

District Level Committee (DLC), on its merits. He submits that earlier the claim of the Petitioner was rejected by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), basing on frivolous grounds. He submits that this Court, vide order dated 21.07.2023, passed in WP(C) No. 3470/2023, having required the consideration of the case of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, by invoking the provisions of Clause 15 of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 01.06.2015, the Respondent authorities were duty bound to undertake the exercise, in this connection. However, he submits that the Respondent authorities have not undertaken an exercise, to ascertain the vacancy position in other departments, against which the Petitioner can be recommended for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶42

Mr. M A Sheikh, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in the light of the contentions raised by the BTC authorities in the affidavit filed by them in the matter, has referred to the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 18.09.2024 and has contended that the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds, has not been done away with and the same continues to be applicable for in respect of the family members of Government Servant, who died in harness on or before 31.03.2017. Accordingly, Mr. M A Sheikh, Learned Counsel for

¶43

Page No.# 7/19

¶44

the Petitioner, submits that in-spite of issuance of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 18.09.2024, the case of the Petitioner continues to be governed by the provisions of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 01.06.2015. Mr. M A Sheikh, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the economic status of the family of the Petitioner was also not considered in its proper perspective by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), while considering the claim application submitted by the Petitioner, herein.

¶45

Ms. B Bhuyan, Learned Senior Standing Counsel, BTC, appearing for the Respondents has submitted that the Petitioner was given a due consideration by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC) on various occasions and the claim of the Petitioner was rejected, finally on the ground of non-availability of vacancy within the 5% quota mandated for consideration of the case of an applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds. She submits that in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court, vide order dated 21.07.2023 in WP(C) No. 3470/2023, the case of the Petitioner was again placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC) in its meeting held on 29.07.2026. By placing on record the minutes of the meeting of the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC) dated 29.07.2026, has submitted that the case of the Petitioner

¶46

Page No.# 8/19

¶47

was duly considered in the light of the directions passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 3470/2023. She submits that on a consideration of the case of the Petitioner, the Committee had come to a conclusion, that more than 14 (fourteen) years having lapsed since the date of death of the Government Servant involved; the family being already authorized family pension, Gratuity, GPF, GIS etc., the family was not facing a financial distress and accordingly, the case of the Petitioner could not be entertained. She further submits that the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC) had also, by noticing the provisions of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 18.09.2024, held that the Petitioner’s case would also not be required to be so considered and accordingly, the claim made by the Petitioner was rejected.

¶48

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶49

The facts, with regard to the manner in which the Petitioner’s application was considered till the passing of the order dated 21.07.2023 in WP(C) No. 3470/2023, being not disputed, the same is not reiterated, hereinbelow. This Court, vide order dated 21.07.2023, passed in WP(C) No. 3470/2023, had required the case of the Petitioner to be considered, in terms of the Clause 15 of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 01.06.2015. Clause 15 of the Office

¶50

Page No.# 9/19

¶51

Memorandum (OM) dated 01.06.2015, mandates that if sufficient vacancies are not available in a particular office to accommodate the persons in the waiting list for compassionate appointment, it is open to the administrative department to take up the matter with other Departments/Offices of the Government to provide an early appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC) for a fresh consideration of the case of the Petitioner in accordance with provisions of Clause 15 of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 01.06.2015.

¶52

Ms. B Bhuyan, Learned Senior Standing Counsel, BTC, appearing for the Respondents, has placed on record the minutes of the meeting of the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC) held on 29.07.2026. This Court has perused the said minutes with regard to the considerations made, therein, of the claim of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. On a perusal of the said conclusions of the said considerations so made qua the Petitioner, this Court finds that the case of the Petitioner was duly considered by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), in the light of the directions passed by this Court, vide the said order dated 21.07.2023, passed in WP(C) No. 3470/2023.

¶53

Page No.# 10/19

¶54

On such consideration, the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), noticing the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter, i.e. more than 14 (fourteen) years having lapsed, since the date of death of the Government Servant, had proceeded to reject the claim of the Petitioner. The further ground on which the claim of the Petitioner was rejected, was the stipulations made in the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 18.09.2024, issued by the Personnel Department, Govt. of Assam.

¶55

This Court, at the outset, would consider the rejection of the claim of the Petitioner by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC) on account of the long lapse of time occasioning after the date of death of the father of the Petitioner. It is a settled position of law that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State is to ensure that the dependents of the deceased employee, are not deprived of a means of livelihood. The compassionate appointment scheme is formulated with a view to facilitate the family members of the deceased employee, to get over the sudden financial crisis, occasioning on account of the death of the employee. No applicant can claim a vested right for being appointed on compassionate grounds and such right is also not available to an

¶56

Page No.# 11/19

¶57

employee to claim at any point of time in future.

¶58

The intention behind the formulation of a scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds being to facilitate the family to tide over the financial crisis, occasioning on account of the death of the Government employee, such appointment is to be effected proximate to the time of death of the Government Servant and not after the crisis so envisaged has passed over.

¶59

Having noticed the intentions behind the formulation of a scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds, this Court finds that the father of the Petitioner had expired on 27.11.2011. Although the Petitioner had submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds and was found to have pursued the same, considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter, i.e. of more than 14 (fourteen) years, this Court is of the considered view that the claim made by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition has been rendered stale on account of the delay occasioning in the matter. The jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), having rejected the claim of the Petitioner also on the ground of the delay of more than 14 (fourteen) years occasioning after the date of death of the father of the Petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the claim made by the Petitioner having been rendered stale, no

¶60

Page No.# 12/19

¶61

mandamus can be issued to the Respondent authorities, requiring a fresh consideration to be extended to the claim of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶62

Support, in this connection, is drawn from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. reported in 2025 (5) SCC 712 . The Conclusions drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relevant to the issue arising in the present proceeding, in extracted, hereinbelow :

¶63

“ 17. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant State of West Bengal at the outset submitted that the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta were based on an incorrect appreciation of law and facts and therefore the same are liable to be set aside.

¶64

17.1. It was further submitted that directing at such a belated stage, that the respondent-writ petitioners ought to be appointed on compassionate grounds would have no redeeming purpose. That the rationale behind a policy of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the dependant(s) of a government employee dying in harness. This object would require that immediate steps be taken to enable the dependant(s) to recover from the sudden financial crisis as a result of death or disablement of a breadwinner of a family. If the said purpose is not going to be accomplished, the Court may not direct the same granting compassionate appointment. That in the instant cases, the applications made by the respondent-writ petitioners for compassionate appointment relates to the year 2005-2006. That a direction to act on the same now i.e. 17-18 years after the applications seeking compassionate appointment were made, would not further the object of a scheme of

¶65

Page No.# 13/19

¶66

compassionate appointment.

¶67

17.2. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar [State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 542] (“Shashi Kumar”) to contend that where there is a significant gap between making the application for compassionate appointment and filing a writ petition to challenge inaction on the part of the Government, a direction to consider the application for compassionate appointment may not be issued.

¶68

17.3. It was next contended that Circular No. 142-Emp. clarified that 97-Emp. was applicable only in respect of State Government employees and directed the municipalities to formulate their own schemes for compassionate appointment. This would mean that as a matter of policy of the State Government, it was declared that it is not viable to give compassionate appointment to heirs of employees of establishments of public undertakings, statutory bodies, government companies and local authorities. That by virtue of the clarification under Circular No. 142-Emp., the position would be that no scheme exists for compassionate appointment in municipalities. It is for such establishments to formulate policies of their own in consultation with the respective administrative department. That, in the absence of a sanctioned scheme for compassionate appointment in respect of municipal employees, no relief could have been granted by the High Court.

¶69

17.4. It was urged that compassionate appointment could not be claimed as a matter of right and a claim for the same must be entertained having regard to the compelling financial circumstances (if any) of the deceased's dependant(s). Therefore, entertaining a claim which was made in 2005-2006, in the year 2023, would be of no avail.

¶70

Page No.# 14/19

¶71

Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view 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 claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, 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 or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh 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. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee.

¶72

Laches or undue delay, the blame-worthy conduct of a person in approaching a Court of Equity in England for obtaining discretionary relief which disentitled him for grant of such relief was explained succinctly by Sir Barnes Peacock, in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong, [1874] 3 P.C. 221 as under:

¶73

"Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it or where by his conduct and neglect he has in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards though

¶74

Page No.# 15/19

¶75

perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation, material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most be just is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute or limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of Justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy."

¶76

Whether the above doctrine of laches which disentitled grant of relief to a party by Equity Court of England, could disentitle the grant of relief to a person by the High Court in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of our Constitution, came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M. R. Meher, President, Industrial Court, Bombay, AIR 1967 SC 1450. In the said case, it was regarded as a principle that disentitled a party for grant of relief from a High Court in the exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶77

In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 this Court restated the principle articulated in earlier pronouncements in the following words:

¶78

"9. the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this Rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is

¶79

Page No.# 16/19

¶80

exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction."

¶81

While we are mindful of the fact that there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, ordinarily, a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time, vide Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538; NDMC v. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278.

¶82

Further, simply because the Respondents-Writ Petitioners submitted their applications to the relevant authority in the year 2005-2006, it cannot be said that they diligently perused the matter and had not slept over their rights. In this regard, it may be apposite to refer to the decision of this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, wherein the following observations were made:

¶83

From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time."

¶84

Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court would now

¶85

examine the further grounds assigned by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), in its meeting held on 29.07.2026, to reject the claim made by the Petitioner, basing on the Office Memorandum

¶86

Page No.# 17/19

¶87

(OM) dated 18.09.2024. The Government of Assam in the Personnel Department, had issued the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 18.09.2024, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (Supra) . The operative portion of the said Office Memorandum (OM) dated 18.09.2024, being relevant is extracted, hereinbelow :

¶88

“In view of the circumstances mentioned above, it has been decided that no cases for appointment on compassionate ground to the family member of State Government employees who died in harness or retire prematurely on being declared permanently incapacitated for service or missing and whose whereabouts is not known prior to 31.03.2017, shall be entertained by any Administrative Department/Authority for any reason whatsoever nor be placed before SLCs/DLCs for recommendation of candidates for appointment on compassionate ground. The cases of employees who die/ died in harness after 31.03.2017 have been taken care of by way of "Compassionate Family Pension Scheme in lieu of Compassionate Appointment" vide No FEG 28/2017/26 dated 14.9.2017.”

¶89

A perusal of the operative portion of the said Office Memorandum (OM) dated 18.09.2024, would go to reveal that the State Government had decided to withdraw the earlier prevalent scheme claims of the family members for appointment on compassionate grounds of State Government employees, who died in harness or retired prematurely on being declared permanently incapacitated for service or missing and whose whereabouts is not

¶90

Page No.# 18/19

¶91

known prior to 31.03.2017 and had decided that claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, shall not be entertained by any Administrative department or authority for any reason whatsoever, nor be placed before the SLC/DLC for recommendation. Accordingly, vide the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 18.09.2024, in fact the very scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds, as prevalent earlier, including the scheme which was in vogue, in pursuance to the issuance of an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 01.06.2015, has been withdrawn.

¶92

The Petitioner, has, in the present Writ Petition, not challenged the provisions of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 18.09.2024. The submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, relying on the first paragraph of the said Office Memorandum (OM), in the considered view of this court, would not be acceptable inasmuch as, the operative portion of the said Office Memorandum (OM), gives the intent and purport behind the issuance of the said Office Memorandum (OM). Accordingly, the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, stand rejected.

¶93

In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the claim raised by the Petitioner in the present proceedings, having been rendered stale, it would not be permissible

¶94

Page No.# 19/19

¶95

for this Court to issue any direction, requiring the reconsideration of the case of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, in pursuance to the date of death of her father, in harness, occasioning in the year 2011. Accordingly, for the reasons assigned, hereinabove, the present Writ Petition is found to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs.

¶96

A copy of the minutes of the meeting of the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), furnished by Ms. B Bhuyan, Learned Senior Standing Counsel, BTC, appearing for the Respondents, is kept on record and marked as ‘X’ for the purpose of identification.

¶97

JUDGE

¶98

Comparing Assistant

Hirabati Bhagat v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hirabati Bhagat v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases