Bhabani Chetry Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/8

¶2

GAHC010253062025

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:7894

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/231/2026

¶6

BHABANI CHETRY

¶7

S/O- LATE RATNA BAHADUR CHETRY, R/O- VILL KARIBIL NEPALI, P.O.KARNI PATHAR, PIN-784176, DIST -BISWANATH, ASSAM.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6..

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (B) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶11

3:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MR. MEHUL SHAH,MS. S. CHANDA,MS. U NANDA,MS. J GHOSH

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, SEC. EDU.

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 04-06-2026

¶18

Page No.# 2/8

¶19

Heard Ms. U. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M.

¶20

Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the State respondent.

¶21

The petitioner in the present proceeding has assailed an order dated 30-08-2025 issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Personnel Department laying down the criteria for consideration of applications submitted for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶22

As projected in the writ petition, the father of the petitioner, Ratna Bahadur Chetry, while working as Grade-IV employee in the Karibil High School had died in harness on 1601-2016. The petitioner proximate to the time of death of his father had submitted an application praying for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The case of the petitioner not being placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee, he had approached this Court by way of fling a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2932/2023. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner came to learn that his case was placed before the jurisdictional DLC in its meeting held on 28-062017 and on consideration of the same, was rejected in terms of the provisions of Clause1 of the OM dated 01-06-2015 on the ground that his father at the time of his death did not have the minimum balance of 03 (three) years of residual service. Accordingly, the said writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2932/2023 was withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to assail the decision of the jurisdictional DLC.

¶23

The petitioner projects that the provision of Clause-1 of the OM dated 01-06-2015, was assailed before this Court by similarly situated persons by way of instituting writ

¶24

Page No.# 3/8

¶25

applications, one of it being W.P.(C) No. 1646/2021. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 30-01-2023 proceeded to dispose of the said writ petitiond by interfering with the provisions of Clause-1 of the OM dated 01-06-2015 and remanding back the matter to the respondent authorities to be placed before the Committee constituted for consideration of cases for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner being similarly situated like the petitioners whose cases were covered by the said judgment and order dated 30-01-2023, approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3601/2023.

¶26

A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16-10-2023 proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition by noticing the judgment and order dated 30-01-2023 in W.P.(C) No. 1646/2021 and other analogous matters wherein the provision of Clause-1 of the OM dated 01-06-2015 was set aside. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, accordingly, interfered with the rejection of the petitioner’s application by the jurisdictional DLC in its meeting held on 28-06-2017 and remanded back the matter to be placed in the next meeting of the jurisdictional DLC for a fresh consideration.

¶27

The case of the applicant was again placed before the jurisdictional DLC in its meeting held on 07-12-2023. The jurisdictional DLC, on consideration of the case of the petitioner again proceeded to reject his case by referring to the provisions of Clause-1 of the OM dated 01-06-2015. The petitioner being aggrieved, had again approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2987/2024. The State, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30-01-2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1646/2021 had assailed the said judgment before the Division

¶28

Page No.# 4/8

¶29

Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 287/2023 and other analogous matters. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 12-12-2025 was pleased to affirm the decision of the Hon’ble Single Judge along with the remand made by the learned Single Judge of the cases before the duly constituted Committee for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶30

At this stage, it is to be noticed that the respondent authorities by way of issuing an Office Memorandum dated 18-09-2024, had done away with the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds for family members of Government servants, who had died in harness prior to 01-04-2017. The said OM dated 18-09-2024 had also superseded the policy for appointment on compassionate grounds vide OM dated 01-062015.

¶31

The said OM was challenged before this Court by applicants awaiting consideration of their case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The lead case being W.P.(C) No. 342/2025 ( Abdul Kadir Bokshi Vs. State of Assam & Ors. ). A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03-04-2025, noticing the concession made by the State respondent to consider the cases of the writ petitioners on merit, whose writ petitions were pending consideration as on 03-04-2025, wherein, a challenge is presented to the said OM dated 18-09-2024, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petitions allowing the State respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the directions passed therein.

¶32

In pursuance to the said order dated 03-04-2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 342/2025, an order dated 30-08-2025 was issued by the respondent authorities and

¶33

Page No.# 5/8

¶34

therein, it was provided that the cases where rejection of applications for compassionate appointment has not been set aside by any Court or cases, wherein, such rejection order has not been put to challenge prior to 04-04-2025 shall not be reopened unless there is a direction from this Court. The petitioner, accordingly, apprehends that in view of the said order dated 30-08-2025, his case for appointment on compassionate grounds on setting aside of Clause-1 of the OM dated 01-06-2015, would not be extended with a fresh consideration.

¶35

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition.

¶36

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

¶37

It is an admitted position that the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected by the jurisdictional DLC only on the ground that the father of the petitioner, at the time of his death, did not have the residual service of 03 (three) years. Accordingly, in terms of the provisions of Clause-1 of the OM dated 01-062015, the petitioner was held to be not entitled for a consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶38

As noticed, hereinabove, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 30-01-2023, passed in W.P.(C) No. 1646/2021 and other analogous matters had interfered with the provisions of Clause-1 of the OM dated 01-06-2015 and directed for consideration of the cases of the petitioners in the said writ petitions by the duly constituted Committee for consideration of their respective cases for appointment on

¶39

Page No.# 6/8

¶40

compassionate grounds. The said decision on being assailed by the State before the Division Bench of this Court, the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 12-122025 passed in W.A. No. 287/2023 and other analogous matters had affirmed the decision of the Coordinate Bench. The Division Bench, thereafter, noticing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court applicable to the issues arising before it, had passed the following direction:-

¶41

“14. The respondents constitute a homogenous class of persons. whose bread-earners have died in harness. They come within exception laid down in D.S. Nakara (supra). It would be inappropriate for the State to contend that the purpose of the classification was to avoid fraud or misuse. Fraud or misuse may occur, irrespective of the length of service remaining. Limiting the benefits to dependants of the deceased employees, who have 3(three) years of service remaining, does not necessarily reduce the risk of fraudulent claims: a would-be fraudster could equally fabricate or collude in cases where a deceased employee had long remaining service. There is no logical causal connection between the duration of remaining service and the likelihood of such misuse.

¶42

We find force in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that the claim of the State that the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 is in accordance with the 10(ten) principles enunciated in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra) and the Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2013 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, is factually incorrect. The learned Single Judge did not find any rationale in the draft note preceding the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 was approved by the State Cabinet.

¶43

The absence of any contemporaneous reasoning diminishes any claim of the State that the choice of 3(three) years was the product of considered administrative evaluation for it not to be interfered with on the ground of such administrative policy being within the domain of executive and the usual restraint of the Courts in treading in such field. The executive must always conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Policy classifications must not be arbitrary, irrational or discriminatory without an intelligible basis. Compassionate appointment may not be an absolute vested right but it is a benefit conferred by the employer subject to policy conditions. The non-vested status of compassionate employment does not immunize arbitrary classifications from constitutional scrutiny.

¶44

On these grounds, we find the declaration of Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 to be constitutionally invalid by the learned Single

¶45

Page No.# 7/8

¶46

Judge, to be wholly justified.

¶47

Now the question to be decided is whether it was appropriate for the learned Single Judge, even while taking cognizance of the supersession of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 with Office Memorandum dated 14.09.2017, replacing Compassionate Appointment with Compassionate Family Pension and also the passage of long number of years since the death of the deceased employees in all the writ petitions, is justified?

¶48

The new Policy of the State vide Office Memorandum dated 14.09.2017 replacing Compassionate Appointment with Compassionate Family Pension Scheme would be applicable from a cut-off date in the year 2017, which is not applicable in cases of the respondents. The Policy of the State, which was prevalent at the time of death of the employees, would only be applicable to the respondents and in that case, there would be some justification for sustaining the relegating order by the learned Single Judge, notwithstanding the passage of more than 10(ten) years since the deaths.

¶49

Though we have taken the argument of the learned Advocate General with some seriousness that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Debabrata Tiwari (supra) prohibits compassionate appointment after long passage of time, but in the present set of cases, closing the chapter for the private respondents would not be appropriate.

¶50

We thus affirm the relegating order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶51

While making such application before the concerned authorities, the private respondents, we may caution, must not entertain any false hopes and the concerned authorities also shall consider the “passage of time” aspect seriously while assessing the suitability of the private respondents for compassionate appointment, which would be the most important factor in recommending the cases of the private respondents for compassionate appointment, which ultimately may not withstand the judicial scrutiny if such recommendation is made after a long lapse of time since the death of the deceased employees.”

¶52

In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court noticed, hereinabove,

¶53

this Court holds that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate

¶54

grounds, in pursuance to the death of his father in harness, being rejected only by referring to the provisions of Clause-1 of the OM dated 01-06-2015, would be required to be placed before the jurisdictional DLC for a consideration of his case for appointment on

¶55

compassionate grounds and for the purpose the decision of the jurisdictional DLC as

¶56

Page No.# 8/8

¶57

arrived at in its meeting held on 07-12-2023 stands interfered with.

¶58

The respondent authorities shall now place the case of the petitioner before the constituted jurisdictional DLC, within a period of 01 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The District Level Scrutiny Committee shall consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds strictly in accordance with the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in W.A. No. 287/2023 and

¶59

other analogous matters. Further action as may be mandated, be so taken by the respondent authorities basing on the decision of the District Level Committee. Upon such consideration being made, the result thereof be communicated to the petitioner.

¶60

With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶61

JUDGE

¶62

Comparing Assistant

Bhabani Chetry v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhabani Chetry v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayanta Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Jitul Medhi Vs Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Sri Bhagya Deka Vs the Government of Assam and Ors.

Sanjib Das Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Viki Deep Das Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Sanjib Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.