Dismissed¶¶39

Dilal Ahmed Barbhuiya v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Jun 2026WP(C)/4566/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate grounds appointment; District Level Committee (DLC); State Level Committee; deceased government servant; death in harness 14-12-2012; Chainman; Settlement Officer Hailakandi; Deputy Commissioner Hailakandi; alleged application 02-01-2013 not received; delayed application 02-09-2021; policy procedure violation; lapse of 14 years; immediacy lost; stale claim; mandamus refused; writ petition dismissed without costs; WP(C)/4566/2021; GAHC010136822021; 2026:GAU-AS:8222; Gauhati High Court; Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair; order dated 09-06-2026; State of W.B. Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. (2025) 5 SCC 712.

What did the court decide?

No error was committed by the respondent authorities in not placing the petitioner's non-existent application (of 02-01-2013) before the jurisdictional DLC. ¶¶34

Dilal Ahmed Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent authorities were required to place the petitioner's application (claimed to have been made on 02-01-2013) before the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC) for consideration of his appointment on compassionate grounds. +1 more

¶¶22

Court's answer

No error was committed by the respondent authorities in not placing the petitioner's non-existent application (of 02-01-2013) before the jurisdictional DLC.

¶¶34

Ratio / Principle

The delayed submission of the application dated 02-09-2021 is in clear violation of the procedure laid down in the policy in vogue at the relevant time for consideration of family members of deceased Government servants for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶¶34

Key takeaways

The subsequent application dated 02-09-2021, being a delayed application, would not mandate a consideration on merits.ratio¶¶34
With about fourteen years lapsed since the father's death in harness and no diligent pursuit shown, the immediacy required for compassionate appointment is lost and the claim is rendered stale; hence it is not permissible for this Court to issue a mandamus on such a stale claim.ratio¶¶38
The petitioner was a major on the date of his father's death, a factual finding underlying the delay analysis.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP(C)/4566/2021, Gauhati High Court (N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.), order dated 09-06-2026 — Compassionate appointment; claim dismissed as stale. The petitioner sought a direction to have his application placed before the District Level Committee (DLC) after his father, a Chainman under the Settlement Officer, Hailakandi, died in harness on 14-12-2012. The alleged application of 02-01-2013 by the petitioner's mother was disputed and not traceable in official records (communication dated 07-01-2022, Sr. Assistant Settlement Officer); the application was admittedly received only on 02-09-2021, the petitioner having been a major at his father's death. Held: (i) no error in not placing a non-existent application before the DLC; (ii) the delayed 02-09-2021 application violated the procedure in the then-voguing policy and would not mandate consideration on merits; (iii) with about fourteen years elapsed since the death and no diligent pursuit, the immediacy required for compassionate appointment was lost and the claim rendered stale, so no mandamus could issue [Refer: State of W.B. Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., (2025) 5 SCC 712]. Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010136822021

2026:GAU-AS:8222

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4566/2021

¶6

DILAL AHMED BARBHUIYA

¶7

S/O LATE ABDUL KARIM BARBHUIYA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARNOGOD, PO KALIBARI BAZAR, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS

¶10

TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI

¶11

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN OF THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC) HAILAKANDI ASSAM

¶12

3:THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER HAILAKANDI ASSA

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M H LASKAR, MR. S ROY,MR M HOSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 09-06-2026

¶18

Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta,

¶19

learned standing counsel, Revenue & DM Department, appearing for the respondent No. 1

¶20

Page No.# 2/6

¶21

and Ms. M. Bhattahcharjee, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the State respondents.

¶22

The writ petitioner, by way of instituting the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds by placing his application before the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC).

¶23

The father of the petitioner, Abdul Karim Barbhuiya, while working as a Chainman under the establishment of Settlement Officer, Hailakandi, died in harness on 14-12-2012. It is projected that the mother of the petitioner, on 02-01-2013, had submitted an application before the respondent No. 2, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi through the Assistant Settlement Officer, Hailakandi, i.e. the respondent No. 3, praying for consideration of her elder son’s case, i.e. the petitioner, herein, for appointment on compassionate grounds. After submission of the said application, it is projected in the writ petition that the petitioner was pursuing the matter with the respondent authorities, however, no application submitted in this matter has been brought on record. The petitioner only projects that he was under expectation that the DLC would consider his case in accordance with the policy, in vogue, at the relevant point of time for appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondents having not considered the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition on 01-09-2021.

¶24

Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the respondents having formulated a policy for

¶25

Page No.# 3/6

¶26

appointment on compassionate grounds and therein, having required the consideration of the case of the applicants initially by the District Level Committee (DLC) and thereafter, by the State Level Committee (SLC), the application submitted in respect of the petitioner ought not to have been ignored and the same was required to be placed before the jurisdictional DLC and thereafter, basing on the recommendation of the Committee further steps as was mandated in the matter was required to be taken. By referring to the affidavit filed in the matter by the respondent, Mr. Laskar has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi vide communication dated 18-01-2022, had returned the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds to the Senior Assistant Settlement Officer, Hailakandi with a request to place the same before the next DLC meeting for taking appropriate decision.

¶27

Ms. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam, on the other hand, submits that the contention of the petitioner that an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, in his case was submitted by his mother on 02-01-2013, is not found to be correct, inasmuch as, the said application is not found in the records of the respondents. She submits that considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter, no direction is called upon to be issued by this Court for consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. Ms. Bhattacharjee has referred to the communication issued in this connection by the Sr. Assistant Settlement Officer, Hailakandi on 07-01-2022, wherein, it was highlighted that no application dated 02-01-2013 and other documents were received from the mother of the petitioner for appointing him on compassionate grounds. It is further highlighted that the said

¶28

Page No.# 4/6

¶29

application was only received on 02-09-2021. It is submitted that the communication dated 18-01-2022, by the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi was in response to the said communication dated 07-01-2022, issued by the Senior Assistant Settlement Officer, Hailakandi. She, accordingly, submits that it not being established that the petitioner had on his own motion and/ or on his behalf, an application was submitted for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds, proximate to the time of death of his father, the delayed submission of the application by the petitioner would have the effect of rejection of his case for such consideration.

¶30

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

¶31

The father of the petitioner, a Govt. servant while discharging his service had died in harness on 14-12-2012. It is projected by the petitioner in the writ petition that his mother had on 02-01-2013, submitted an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi through the Assistant Settlement Officer, Hailakandi praying for consideration of the case of her son, i.e. the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. The receipt of the said application is disputed by the respondents by way of filing an affidavit in the present writ petition. In the said affidavit a communication dated 07-01-2022 issued by the Senior Assistant Settlement Officer, Hailakandi is brought on record. A perusal of the said affidavit would reveal that it was projected, therein, that the petition dated 02-01-2013, filed by the mother of the petitioner was never received in the office of the Senior Assistant Settlement Officer, Hailakandi. It was further projected that the application for consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on

¶32

Page No.# 5/6

¶33

compassionate grounds was received only on 02-09-2021. Accordingly, it is seen that the submission of application for consideration of the case of the petitioner proximate to the time of death of his father is disputed. The application is admitted to have been submitted by the petitioner, only on 02-09-2021. The petitioner on the date of death of his father was a major.

¶34

Accordingly, the delayed submission of the application dated 02-09-2021 by the petitioner for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds, in the considered view of this Court, is in clear violation of the procedure laid down in the policy, in vogue, at the relevant point of time, for consideration of the cases of the family members of deceased Government servants for appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, this Court does not find any error to have been committed by the respondent authorities in not placing a non-existent application of the petitioner before the jurisdictional DLC. The subsequent application dated 02-09-2021, submitted by the petitioner being a delayed application would not mandate a consideration on merits. In view of the said conclusion, this Court is of the considered view that the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition for a direction upon the respondent authorities to place his application dated 02-01-2013, before the jurisdictional DLC would not mandate an acceptance from this Court.

¶35

Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now examine the claim made by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondent authorities for a fresh consideration

¶36

in his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. As noticed, hereinabove, the father of the petitioner had died in harness on 14-12-2012, more than 14 (fourteen) years

¶37

Page No.# 6/6

¶38

is found to have lapsed since the date of death of his father. Although, it is projected that an application was submitted on behalf of the petitioner on 02-01-2013, for his appointment on compassionate grounds, this Court as noticed, hereinabove, has found that there is no material brought on record to demonstrate as to the manner in which the petitioner and/ or his family members had pursued the said application. The petitioner is also not found to have diligently pursued his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, on account of the lapse of around 14 (fourteen) years, since the date of death of the father of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the immediacy required to be followed in respect of the cases for appointment on compassionate grounds is lost. Insofar as, the claim made by the petitioner in the present proceeding, this Court finds that the same to have been rendered stale. Accordingly, it would not be permissible for this Court to issue a mandamus basing on such claim which has already been rendered stale. [Refer: State of W.B. Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712 ]

¶39

In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance. Accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same consequently stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Dilal Ahmed Barbhuiya v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilal Ahmed Barbhuiya v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bukeson Bag Vs the Commissioner and Secreteary and 8 Ors.

Anil Kumar Deuri Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Jitu Hatimuria and Anr. Vs Ashutosh Agnihotri, IAS and 5 Ors.

Pranab Jyoti Borboruah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mazibar Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

MD Intaz Ali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.