Bijoy Deka Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM. 3:THE SECRETARY B.T.C. KOKRAJHAR. 4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE MEMBER BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM.

¶10

5:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND UNDER WELFARE OF BODOLAND DEPTT.

¶11

Page No.# 2/12

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 6:THE BTC LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE HEADED BY CHAIRMAN BTC LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE CHIRANG ASSAM. 7:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIRANG KAJALGAON. 8:THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE BTC KOKRAJHAR. 9:THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER CHIRANG KAJALGAON. 10:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER BIJNI CHIRANG

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA, MR A HOSSAIN,MR. L MOHAN,MRS. K H CHOUDHURY

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AGRI. DEPARTMENT, SC, BTC

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 03.06.2026

¶18

Heard Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. M.

¶19

Bhattacharjee, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Mr. B. C.

¶20

Page No.# 3/12

¶21

Mushahary, the learned Standing Counsel for the BTC Authorities and Ms. R.

¶22

Borah, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

¶23

By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for compassionate appointment to a Grade-III post under the Agriculture Department.

¶24

The petitioner has also challenged the decision of the State Level Committee (SLC) dated 31.08.2024, whereby the proposal regarding recommendation of the District Level Selection Committee dated 20.09.2023 was rejected.

¶25

It is the case of the petitioner that his father was working as a Peon in the office of the Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Bijni, and that he expired while in service on 15.12.2001. It is the further case of the petitioner that, after the death of his father, he submitted an application on 18.01.2002, in the prescribed

¶26

format before the District Agriculture Officer, Bongaigaon, praying for his appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶27

The petitioner further states that, on 11.06.2002, the District Agriculture Officer, Bongaigaon, forwarded his application to the Director of Agriculture, Assam, Khanapara, for the disposal. However, for not getting any response from

¶28

the respondent authorities, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ

¶29

Page No.# 4/12

¶30

petition being WP(C) No. 6592/2002. This Court, vide order dated 08.10.2002, directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds within a stipulated period of time with the further direction that the authorities will consider the claims in terms of the eligibility and in light of the policy in force at the relevant time.

¶31

In pursuant to the said order, it is stated by the petitioner that, the District Level Selection Committee was not there at that juncture, and that on 11.02.2015, the BTC had constituted the BTC Level Committee for appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, the vacancy position was also sought for by the authorities concern and the same was intimated by the Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Bijni. However, the petitioner did not get any response from the respondent authorities regarding consideration of his case for compassionate appointment and had approached before the authority to know the status of his case. Pursuant to such request, the petitioner was apprised that his case was forwarded to the Principal Secretary BTC, for consideration by the BTC Level Committee. The petitioner further states that after the disposal for the aforesaid writ petition in the year 2002, the petitioner had on many occasion approached the respondent authorities to consider the case for appointment on compassionate ground but the petitioner was not communicated about the same. Finally the petitioner came to know from the

¶32

Page No.# 5/12

¶33

letter issued by the Director of Agriculture, BTC, Kokrajhjar, to the Hon’ble Chief Executive Member, Boroland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar, that there were 29 cases for appointment on compassionate basis and petitioner was one of them but no one could be appointed due to non-availability of vacancies and as such, it was stated therein, that petitioner’s case could not be considered. Aggrieved, thereby, the petitioner had filed another writ petition before this court, which was registered as WP(C) No. 4507/2023, and this court by order dated 09.08.2023, had observed that the matter regarding appointment of the petitioner and similarly situated persons on compassionate appointment was processed and considered at different levels by different officers for last several years and that ultimately, by a communication dated 17.11.2021, it was informed to the petitioner that his case was not forwarded on the ground of lack of vacancies.

¶34

By the said order, the respondent authorities were directed; more particularly the district level selection committee to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the O.M. NO. ABP.50/2006/Pt./182 dated 01.06.2015, and to pass appropriate orders within a stipulated time.

¶35

Pursuant to the same, the District Level Selection Committee, which was constituted by the BTC held its meeting on 20.09.2023, and took up all the

¶36

Page No.# 6/12

¶37

relevant cases. In case of the petitioner, it was stated by the DLC that the petitioner has applied for his compassionate appointment after the death of his father and that the DLC meeting was held first in the year 2016, and the case of petitioner could not be considered due to lack of vacancy. It was further observed by the DLC, that the vacancies were available when the meeting was held and the name of the petitioner was recommended for his appointment on compassionate ground against sanctioned vacant post of Grade-III under the Agriculture Department, BTC and his case was directed to be placed before the SLC of Government of Assam, through Welfare of Bodoland Department.

¶38

In pursuant thereof, the Secretary BTC, Kokrajhar, by a letter to the Commissioner Secretary to the Government of Assam had requested for placing the case of the petitioner before the SLC meeting and thereafter, the same authorities vide Letter dated 28.02.2024, had submitted the required documents in respect of the petitioner and others and as well as the vacancy position was placed before the SLC in the said letter and the name of the petitioner appeared as Serial No. 5. Thereafter, all the required documents were placed before the authorities concerned. The vacancy position was also placed and it is the case of the petitioner that there were vacant post in both Grade-III and Grade-IV.

¶39

Subsequently, the meeting of the SLC was held on 31.08.2024 and the

¶40

Page No.# 7/12

¶41

case of the petitioner was taken up and in its decision, the SLC stated that more than 23 years have elapsed from the date of the petitioner’s father and that during these years the petitioner and his family had survived and they must have got other means of subsistence and on the ground that delay is an important consideration for giving compassionate appointment, the petitioner’s case was rejected. It was further stipulated in the said decision of the SLC that DLC had not recorded any ground for recommendation and in particular has not made up a case to justify requirement of compassionate appointment after over 23 years of the death of the government employee. It is this decision of the SLC, which is put to challenge in the instant petition.

¶42

Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been trying his best to get an appointment on compassionate ground right from the date of his father’s death by making an application within a period of 1 year from the date of the death of the petitioner’s father but due to one ground or the other his case was not considered first due to lack of vacancies, second there was no District Level Selection Committee in place and lastly, that many years have elapsed form the date of the petitioner’s father’s death. He submits that the only ground for rejecting the petitioner’s claim is that many years have elapsed, which should not have been the consideration by the SLC, since he has been trying his best and years have elapsed not due to his

¶43

Page No.# 8/12

¶44

fault. He placed that DLC, after due consideration has recommended the name of the petitioner to the vacant sanctioned post of Grade-III but SLC had rejected on the ground which should not have been the reason.

¶45

On the other hand Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, has submitted that the delay is a valid reason to be considered by the Selection Committees. Since it is a settled law that the compassionate appointment should not be granted after a long delay, since in the said case, the situation of the candidate becomes better with years, she submits that compassionate appointment is granted only for the reason to avoid vagrancy and that it should be immediate in nature after the death of the government employee and the same cannot be granted. Over the years, the candidates search for other ventures and on obtaining the same, they survived and as such, no ground for compassionate appointment exists after many years. She relied on the judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the “ State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari ” reported in ( 2025) 5 SCC 712 , wherein it was stated that delay of several years becomes an important factor while refusing compassionate appointment because in the mean time, the family of the deceased get enough means to sustain themselves. She also relied on the Judgment delivered by this court in WP(C) NO. 501/2023, as well as in WP(C) No. 2508/2020. Further she has relied on the judgment delivered by this court

¶46

Page No.# 9/12

¶47

in Writ Appeal No. 93/2024. She as such, submits that the petitioner had not

¶48

tried after giving his application in the year 2002, and after getting the consideration order in the year 2002 itself. She also submits that, thereafter, the petitioner filed an application in the year 2023. For long, 21 years the petitioner sat silent which shows that he has means to sustain himself and his family and, as such, has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, which held that long delay will be an important factor to be considered in compassionate appointment.

¶49

It is noticed in the decision of the SLC, Where the case of the petitioner was rejected that the SLC has rejected the case of the petitioner not only on the grounds of delay but have also therein, stipulated that DLC has not recorded any ground for recommendation and has not made up a case to justify requirement of compassionate appointment after 23 years of the employees death.

¶50

On further examination of the DLC’s recommendation, it is crystal clear that the DLC has stated that petitioner’s father died in the year 2001, and the petitioner had made an application in the year 2002, for compassionate appointment and that, thereafter, the DLC meeting was held in the year 2016, and due to lack of vacancy the appointment could not be granted to the petitioner on compassionate ground.

¶51

Page No.# 10/12

¶52

The DLC has also considered the order of this court, wherein it was stated that if sufficient vacancies are not there in any particular office, the petitioner may be accommodated in other departments for appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, the DLC have recorded its finding that vacancies were available at that juncture and since the case of the petitioner was recommended against a sanctioned vacant post of Grade-III, under Agriculture Department, BTC, recommendation was made for his appointment and the case was directed to be placed before the SLC.

¶53

However, in the DLC’s Decision, it is not stated as to the requirement of giving appointment to the petitioner against the said vacant post. It had not dealt with, the numbers of years that has elapsed from the date of his making application. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Debabrata Tiwari (supra), it was held that compassionate appointment is not vested right and the same is related to financial conditions and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee. It was also held that, compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of considerable period of time. It was observed that any delay in deciding such plea dilutes the sense of immediacy of the requirement of the maintaining a family and with time the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased changes. However, it is not a hard and fast rule that in all cases of prolonged delay the compassionate appointment should be rejected.

¶54

Page No.# 11/12

¶55

What requires to be seen is the financial status of the family concerned. Since in the instant case, there is a delay of many years, even if it is considered as a delay the DLC has not endeavored to find out by any means, the financial status of the family. As such, that was a factor which was considered by the SLC, i. e., no reason given by the DLC. It does not happen in each and every case that DLC has to find out the Financial Status of the all the applicants. The instant case is a peculiar case where at first the DLC was not constituted and when it was constituted they found out that there were no vacancies and thereafter, by virtue of the Court’s order the DLC again started the process and found out that vacancies were available and the petitioner was recommended for appointment to the sanctioned post of Grade-III under the Agriculture Department.

¶56

Further it is reflected in the court’s order dated 09.08.2023, wherein, it was stated that after the erstwhile court’s order of 2002, wherein, it was directed that petitioner along with similarly situated persons should be considered for their appointment on compassionate ground, the matter was processed and considered

¶57

at different levels by different offices over several years and ultimately, by a communication in the year 2021, it was informed that petitioner could not be considered for appointment due to lack of vacancies. So it cannot be said that there was an intentional delay by either party, the petitioner or the department. It cannot also be light sight of the fact that many years have elapsed and the

¶58

Page No.# 12/12

¶59

petitioner and his family are not facing financial constraints. Survival is a different

¶60

thing, which every human being on this earth will have but surviving with dignity is a different thing.

¶61

As such, this court finds it fit to direct the Deputy Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar, to constitute a DLC for the instant purpose who will make an attempt to see the financial status of the petitioner and his family and make a fresh recommendation keeping in view the vacancy position as well as the eligibility of the petitioner, which will subsequently be placed before the concerned departments of the district/ territorial Council for due consideration and after the consideration if any, the council will sent the proposal to the State Level Committee for approval. This is as per the O.M. dated 01.06.2015.

¶62

Accordingly, the decision of the SLC with regard to the petitioner, namely, Shri, Bijoy Deka is set aside and the petition is disposed of.

¶63

Further it is directed that that authorities will do the exercise within a period

¶64

of 2 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶65

JUDGE

¶66

Comparing Assistant

Bijoy Deka v. the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijoy Deka v. the State of Assam and 9 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

Jamal Ali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

All Assam Development Authority Employees Joint Council and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 27 Ors.

Chandan Ch Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Kularanjan Das Vs Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Nikhil Gogoi Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Aminul Hoque Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.