Jeanraipou Kabui Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Heard Mr. S Khound, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Ms. M Bhattacharjee, Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 6 & 7 and Mr. R Dhar, Learned Standing Counsel, Public Works (Roads) Department, Assam, appearing for the Respondent Nos. 3, 5 & 8.

¶30

2. The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition, has assailed the decision of the State Level Committee, arrived at, in its meeting held on 16.08.2022, towards rejecting the case of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, by holding that the Petitioner, at the time of submission of his application, was below 18 (Eighteen) years of age.

¶31

Page No.# 3/9

¶32

3. As projected in the Writ Petition, the father of the

¶33

Petitioner, Rakanpow Kabui, while working as a ‘Chowkidar’ in the establishment of the Executive Engineer (PWD), Silchar & Udharbond, Territorial Roads Division, Silchar, Cachar, had died in harness on 23.10.2011. The Petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application on 20.12.2011, before the Executive Engineer (PWD), Silchar & Udharbond, Territorial Roads Division, Silchar, Cachar, i.e. Respondent No. 8, for considering his case for appointment on compassionate grounds, against any Grade-IV vacant post. The application, submitted by the Petitioner, was placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), in its meeting held on 02.02.2022. The said Committee, on consideration, proceeded to recommend the case of the Petitioner, herein, for appointment on compassionate grounds. The recommendations of the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC) came to be placed before the State Level Committee (SLC), in its meeting held on 16.08.2022. The State Level Committee (SLC), on consideration of the said recommendation, proceeded to reject the claim of the Petitioner, by holding that the Petitioner was less than 18 (Eighteen) years of age, at the time of submission of his

¶34

Page No.# 4/9

¶35

application.

¶36

Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has instituted the present Writ

¶37

Petition.

¶38

4. Mr. S Khound, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the rejection of the application of the Petitioner, by the State Level Committee (SLC), was on perverse grounds. It is submitted that the Petitioner, on the date of consideration of his case by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), had attained the age of majority. Accordingly, it is submitted that the recommendation of the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), not having been considered by the State Level Committee (SLC), on merits, the case of the Petitioner is required to be remanded back to the State Level Committee (SLC), for a decision on merits.

¶39

5. Ms. M Bhattacharjee, Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 6 & 7 and Mr. R Dhar, Learned Standing Counsel, Public Works (Roads) Department, Assam, appearing for the Respondent Nos. 3, 5 &

¶40

8, have submitted that the death of the father of the Petitioner

¶41

Page No.# 5/9

¶42

had occasioned on 23.10.2011. Thereafter, it is found that the Petitioner had submitted his application on 20.12.2011. The case of the Petitioner was considered by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), only on 02.02.2022. Accordingly, it is contended that for 11 (Eleven) years, after the submission of the said application by the Petitioner, the matter was not diligently pursued by the Petitioner and/or his family members. It is submitted that as on date, around 14 (Fourteen) years have lapsed since the date of death of the father of the Petitioner and accordingly, the immediacy, in respect of the claim of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, is found to have been lost. In this connection, the Learned counsel have relied upon 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.

¶43

6. With regard to the challenge made to the decision of the State Level Committee, in its meeting held on 16.08.2022, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents, by referring to the minutes of the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC), have submitted that the date-of-birth of the Petitioner was recorded,

¶44

Page No.# 6/9

¶45

therein, as 23.08.1994. It is submitted that the Petitioner would

¶46

have attained the age of majority, only on 22.08.2012. Accordingly, it being an admitted position that the Petitioner had submitted his application for appointment on compassionate grounds, on 20.12.2011. Accordingly, on the date of submission of his application, the Petitioner, admittedly, was a minor. Accordingly, it is submitted that the decision of the State Level Committee (SLC), in respect to the Petitioner, herein, would not mandate an interference from this Court.

¶47

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

¶48

7. The father of the Petitioner had died in harness on 23.10.2011. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has contended that he had submitted an application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds on 20.12.2011. The case of the Petitioner, on being recommended for appointment on compassionate grounds, came to be placed before the State Level Committee (SLC), in its meeting held on 16.08.2022. The State Level Committee (SLC), on consideration

¶49

Page No.# 7/9

¶50

of the application of the Petitioner, proceeded to reject the same, holding that the Petitioner, at the time of submission of his application, was below 18 (Eighteen) years. The date-of-birth of the Petitioner, is found in the minutes of the meeting of the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC) dated 02.02.2022, to be recorded as 23.08.1994. The said position is not disputed by the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner would have attained the age of majority, only on 22.08.2012. The Petitioner having submitted the application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds, on 20.12.2011, the Petitioner, admittedly, on the date of submission of his application, was a minor and accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances arising in the present Writ Petition, the decision of the State Level Committee (SLC), as arrived at, in respect of the Petitioner, in its meeting held on 16.08.2022, rejecting the case of the Petitioner on the ground that he was below 18 (Eighteen) years, on the date he had submitted his application, would not mandate any interference from this Court.

¶51

8. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now consider, as to whether, a direction would now be mandated to

¶52

Page No.# 8/9

¶53

be issued to the Respondent authorities for affording a fresh consideration, with regard to the claim of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is noticed that since the date of death of the Government Servant involved, more than 14 (Fourteen) years have lapsed.

¶54

9. The Petitioner, although, had submitted his application on 20.12.2011, is found to have not diligently pursued the said application. The long delay occasioning since the date of death of the Government Servant involved, the immediacy for effecting appointment, in respect of the Petitioner, on compassionate grounds, is found to have been lost. It is a further settled position that appointment on compassionate grounds is not by way of inheritance. It is also a further settled position that a delay, occasioning, in effecting of appointment on compassionate grounds, either on the ground of the Petitioner, not pursuing the matter diligently and/or on account of the delay occasioning, in this connection, on the part of the Respondent authorities, the delay would have the effect of rendering such claim to be a stale one. [Refer: State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari &

¶55

Ors. (Supra) ].

¶56

Page No.# 9/9

¶57

10. In view of the above conclusions and considering

¶58

the long delay occasioning, since the date of death of the father of the Petitioner in harness, this Court is of the considered view that the immediacy, for effecting an appointment on compassionate grounds, in respect of the Petitioner, herein, was lost. The Petitioner and his family, having been found to have sustained for the last long 14 (fourteen) years, the claim of the Petitioner, is found to have been rendered stale. It would not be permissible for this Court to issue any direction upon the Respondent authorities, for affording to the Petitioner, a fresh consideration, with regard to his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶59

11. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, the present Writ Petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs.

¶60

JUDGE

¶61

Comparing Assistant

Jeanraipou Kabui v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeanraipou Kabui v. the State of Assam and 7 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

Smti Gitali Bordoloi Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Domon Swargiary and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Jahura Bewa @ Jahura Khatun Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Dipanker Boruah Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Firdusi Rahman Chowdhury Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Pankaj Bezbaruah Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.