Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Surajmal Goala Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Gauhati HC
2026
Surajmal Goala Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.Surajmal Goala v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Dismissed¶35

Surajmal Goala v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC19 Jul 2026WP(C)/2706/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate ground appointment; belated/delayed application by minor heir after attaining majority; died-in-harness A.B. Constable (death 31.12.2013); Cachar / Shribhumi (erstwhile Karimganj), Assam; immediacy requirement lost; State of Manipur vs. Md. Rajaodin 2003 (7) SCC 511 applied; Sushma Gosain (1989) 4 SCC 468, Phoolwati 1991 Supp (2) SCC 689, Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh (1995) 6 SCC 476 and Pushpendra Kumar (1998) 5 SCC 192 referred within the quoted extract; writ petition dismissed without costs; Gauhati High Court; WP(C)/2706/2026; Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair; advocates M. A. Sheikh (petitioner) and S. Baruah, GA (respondents).

What did the court decide?

No member of the petitioner's family approached the respondent authorities proximate to the time of the petitioner's father's death seeking consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction upon the respondent authorities for his appointment on compassionate grounds against a post commensurate with his educational qualifications, notwithstanding the long delay after his father's death-in-harness. +1 more

Court's answer

No member of the petitioner's family approached the respondent authorities proximate to the time of the petitioner's father's death seeking consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds.

Ratio / Principle

There is no Government decision permitting a minor to submit a belated application for compassionate appointment upon attaining majority; the Government Circulars mandated submission within a time-bound manner and expeditious consideration.

Key takeaways

The immediacy required for an appointment on compassionate grounds has been lost; a claim made after such long lapse of time since the death of the Government servant would not mandate acceptance.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, single Judge (N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.), W.P.(C) No. 2706 of 2026, decided 20-07-2026 — Compassionate appointment — Claim by son who was a minor (about 12 years) when his father, an A.B. Constable, died in harness on 31.12.2013 — Applications made only on 06.11.2022 and 18.02.2026 — Held: no State policy permits a minor heir to apply belatedly on attaining majority; the Circulars require time-bound submission and expeditious consideration; no family member had approached the authorities proximate to the death; applying State of Manipur vs. Md. Rajaodin, 2003 (7) SCC 511, the immediacy essential to compassionate appointment stood lost after about thirteen years, and a claim made after such long lapse would not mandate acceptance — Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

A

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010100492026

2026:GAU-AS:9920

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

Case No. : WP(C)/2706/2026

SURAJMAL GOALA

S/O LT RAJNARAYAN GOALA, R/O VILLAGE- BOALJUR, P.O. BOALJUR, P.S.- SONAI, DIST CACHAR, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY 06

2:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SHRIBHUMI (ERSTWHILE KARIMGANJ) DIST.- SHRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788710

3:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE SRIBHUMI (ERSTWHILE KARIMGANJ DISTRICT) PIN 78871

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

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,

Page No.# 2/5

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

ORDER

Date : 20-07-2026

Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S Baruah, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

[2.] The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for his appointment on compassionate grounds against any post commensurating to his educational qualifications.

[3.] The father of the petitioner, while working as a A.B. Constable had died-inharness on 31.12.2013. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was aged around 12 years. The petitioner on reaching the age of majority, it is projected that his mother had submitted an application on 06.11.2022, praying for the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The respondent authorities had not taken any steps in pursuance to the submission of the said application and accordingly the petitioner again on 18.02.2026, submitted an application praying for consideration of his appointment on compassionate grounds. The applications submitted in the matter for consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds having not been considered by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition.

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

[5.] The petitioner admittedly, at the time of death of his father in harness was a minor aged around 12 years. It is seen that after around 10 (ten) years from

Page No.# 3/5

the date of death of the father of the petitioner, an application was submitted on behalf of the petitioner for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds.

[6.] From the materials brought on record, this Court does not find that proximate to the time of death of the father of the petitioner, any member of the family of the petitioner had approached the respondent authorities praying for consideration of their case for appointment on compassionate grounds.

[7.] On a query made by this Court to Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether there was any Policy decision adopted by the State Government with regard to a delayed submission of application by a heir of a deceased Government employee on the ground that on the date of death of the Government servant, the said heir was a minor, Mr. Sheikh has, however, fairly submitted that there is no such Policy decision adopted by the State Government in this connection.

[8.] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Manipur vs. Md. Rajaodin , reported in 2003 (7) SCC 511 with regard to the said issue had drawn the following conclusions:-

“ 11. In Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. [1989 (4) SCC 468] it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above view was reiterated in Phoolwati (Smt.) Vs. Union of India & Ors. [1991 Supp. (2) SCC 689] and Union of India and Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Singh [1995 (6) SCC 476]. In Director of

Page No.# 4/5

Education (Secondary) and Anr. Vs. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors. [1998 (5) SCC 192] it was observed that in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependent of the deceased employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the general provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an exception and thererby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision.”

[9.] Applying the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that there is no Government decision permitting a minor to submit a belated application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds upon attaining majority. This Court finds that the Government Circulars invoked in this connection had mandated the submission of such application within a time bound manner and to be considered expeditiously. This Court finds that the father of the petitioner had died-in-harness on 31.12.2013 and thereafter, the family of the petitioner had sustained themselves for the last around 13 (thirteen) years without any of the members of the family being extended with an appointment on compassionate grounds.

[10.] The immediacy required to be so followed in respect of an appointment on compassionate grounds in the present case has been found to be lost. This Court is of the considered view that the claim made by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds, after such long lapse of time, since the date of

Page No.# 5/5

death of the Government servant, would not mandate an acceptance.

[11.] Accordingly, in view of the above discussions, this Court holds that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and therefore, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction upon the respondent authorities for his appointment on compassionate grounds against a post commensurate with his educational qualifications, notwithstanding the long delay after his father's death-in-harness.¶19
The court held
No member of the petitioner's family approached the respondent authorities proximate to the time of the petitioner's father's death seeking consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds.ratio¶25
2.
Whether any Policy decision of the State Government permits a delayed submission of application for compassionate appointment by an heir who was a minor on the date of the Government servant's death.¶26
The court held
There is no Government decision permitting a minor to submit a belated application for compassionate appointment upon attaining majority; the Government Circulars mandated submission within a time-bound manner and expeditious consideration.ratio¶31

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

State of Manipur vs. Md. RajaodinApplied¶27
2003 (7) SCC 511 · Who else cites this
Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.Referred¶28
[1989 (4) SCC 468] · Who else cites this
Phoolwati (Smt.) Vs. Union of India & Ors.Referred¶28
[1991 Supp. (2) SCC 689] · Who else cites this
Union of India and Ors. Vs. Bhagwan SinghReferred¶28
[1995 (6) SCC 476] · Who else cites this
Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. Vs. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors.Referred¶30
[1998 (5) SCC 192] · Who else cites this

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Father of the petitioner, an A.B. Constable, died-in-harness on 31.12.2013, when the petitioner was aged around 12 years.¶20
Prior proceeding
On the petitioner attaining majority, his mother submitted an application dated 06.11.2022 praying for the petitioner's appointment on compassionate grounds.¶20
Prior proceeding
The respondent authorities took no steps pursuant to the 06.11.2022 application.¶20
Prior proceeding
The petitioner submitted a further application dated 18.02.2026 praying for consideration of his appointment on compassionate grounds.¶20
Prior proceeding
Both applications having gone unconsidered, the petitioner instituted the present writ petition.¶20

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Surajmal Goala¶6
M. A. Sheikh, F. Intaz
respondent
The State of Assam and 2 Ors represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Home and Political Department, Dispur, Ghy 06¶9
S. Baruah
respondent
The Superintendent of Police Shribhumi (erstwhile Karimganj)¶10
S. Baruah
respondent
The District Level Scrutiny Committee Sribhumi (erstwhile Karimganj district)¶11
S. Baruah

Coram

AI extract

N. Unni Krishnan Nairauthor¶15

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Gauhati HC
Decided on: 19 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 21 May 2026
Case no.: WP(C)/2706/2026
CNR: GAHC010100492026
Bench: N. Unni Krishnan Nair
Disposal: Disposed Of
Case type: W.P.(C)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from N. Unni Krishnan Nair

Jyoti Kalita Borah Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.
16 Jul 2026
Jagat Chandra Barman Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.
16 Jul 2026
Laishram Ramananda Singh Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.
16 Jul 2026
Sujiara Begam Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.
19 Jul 2026
Uttam Brahma Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.
19 Jul 2026
Smt. Munmun Das Vs Anant Lal Gyani
19 Jul 2026Contempt Case (Civil)

Cite this judgement

Surajmal Goala v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors., WP(C)/2706/2026 (GAU), decided on 19 July 2026.

The Gauhati High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited5

State of Manipur vs. Md. RajaodinApplied¶27
Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.Referred¶28
Phoolwati (Smt.) Vs. Union of India & Ors.Referred¶28

View all cases cited

Procedural history5

Father of the petitioner, an A.B. Constable, died-in-harness on 31.12.2013, when the petitioner was aged around 12 years.
On the petitioner attaining majority, his mother submitted an application dated 06.11.2022 praying for the petitioner's appointment on compassionate grounds.

View full history

Bench / Coram

N. Unni Krishnan Nair

Parties & counsel