Disposed

Toleswari Boro v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Feb 2026WP(C)/8544/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Daughter of a Chowkidar who died in harness sought compassionate appointment; her earlier case could not be accommodated for want of vacancy. The High Court disposed of the writ petition directing the authorities to consider her case under the applicable policy if requisite documents were submitted, within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner for compassionate appointment per applicable policy, if documents submitted, within three months.

Toleswari Boro Vs the Union of India and 6… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010274982018

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/8544/2018

¶6

TOLESWARI BORO

¶7

D/O- LATE MADHURAM BORO, R/O- PATIDAL VERELA B P.O- MISSAMARI, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784506

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MIN OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI- 110001

¶10

2:THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF NEW DELHI- 110001

¶11

3:THE MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICE HEAD QUARTER EASTERN COMMAND ENGINEERS BRANCH PIN- 908542 C/O- 99 APO

¶12

4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICES SHILLONG ZONE SPREAD EAGLE FALLS SHILLONG- 793011 5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICES SILIGURI ZONE SILIGURI- 734008 C/O- 99 APO

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

6:COMMANDER WORKS ENGINEER MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICES TEZPUR P.O- DEKARGAON DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784501

¶15

7:THE GARRISON ENGINEER MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICES P.O- MISSAMARI DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 78450

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MR. F A HASSAN,MS A BORAH

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. S C KEYAL (ASSTT.S.G.I.)

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 05.02.2026

¶21

Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for all respondents.

¶22

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider for appointment on compassionate ground against any suitable vacancy on account of death of her father, late Madhuram Boro, who died-in-harness on 26.06.2008 while working as Chowkidar (CVB) under the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Services, Assam at Missamari.

¶23

The petitioner being the eldest and unmarried daughter of her deceased father had applied for appointment on compassionate ground vide dated 24.11.2008 along with all the requisite documents. On such application, the case of the petitioner was placed before the Selection Board for compassionate appointment and the petitioner was enlisted in the combined merit list for the year 2010-14 and the

¶24

Page No.# 3/5

¶25

same was forwarded on 21.09.2016 to the competent authority.

¶26

Thereafter, the Commander, Works Engineer, vide letter dated 22.03.2018 again forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Headquarter, Chief Engineer, Siliguri Zone, requesting for initiation of action for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. However the same was returned and directed the concerned authority to obtain information from other zone.

¶27

It is the contention of the petitioner that despite several approaches and correspondences, the petitioner could not be appointed on compassionate ground without any justification, which resulted in acute financial hardship to maintain the family. Therefore, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on any suitable post.

¶28

Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned DSGI for the respondents submits that the case of the petitioner was considered under the earlier scheme in the year 2010-14. However, due to non-availability of vacancy, the petitioner could not be appointed. He submits that vide communication dated 07.03.2019, the authorities have decided that the cases of compassionate appointment may not be rejected simply on the ground that it had already been considered unless it was rejected due to lack of merit or not found suitable under the criteria for compassionate appointment. If the compassionate appointment could not be granted due to non-availability of vacancies at the relevant time, any fresh application, should be re-considered after adjudging his/her penurious condition on the basis of the family’s latest financial/economic condition, number of dependents of the family and latest marital status of dependents etc in the light of the existing guidelines.

¶29

He further submits that the authorities vide letter dated 02.06.2022 directed the petitioner to submit all the requisite documents. He fairly submits that if the petitioner has submitted all the requisite documents in terms of the communication dated 02.06.2022, the case of the petitioner shall be considered in terms of the applicable policy and the communication dated 07.03.2019.

¶30

Page No.# 4/5

¶31

Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a categorical statement that the petitioner has submitted all the requisite documents as per the communication dated 02.06.2022, therefore, he submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the policy and the communication dated 07.03.2019.

¶32

I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶33

The petitioner claims for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of her father, who had died-in-harness while working as Chowkidar under the respondents. Her case was considered by the authorities initially in the year 2010-14. However, due to non-availability of vacancy, she could not be appointed on compassionate ground in terms of applicable scheme for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶34

During the pendency of the present petition, vide communication dated 07.03.2019, the respondent authorities appears to have decided that any application for compassionate appointment shall not be rejected simply on the ground that it had already been considered unless it was rejected due to lack of merit or not found suitable under the criteria for compassionate appointment. If the compassionate appointment could not be granted due to non-availability of vacancies at the relevant time, any fresh application, should be re-considered after adjudging his/her penurious condition on the basis of the family’s latest financial/economic condition, number of dependents of the family and latest marital status of dependents etc in the light of the existing guidelines.

¶35

Pursuant thereto, vide communication dated 02.06.2022, the respondent authorities informed and directed the petitioner to submit all the requisite documents. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that the petitioner has submitted all the requisite documents as sought for by the respondents vide communication dated 02.06.2022, nothing has been brought on record to show that the required documents have been submitted. It is not discernible as to whether in actuality, it

¶36

Page No.# 5/5

¶37

has been submitted or not. However as fairly submitted by Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned DSGI, if the petitioner has submitted all the requisite documents as per the communication dated 02.06.2022, the authority would be duty bound to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the applicable policy of the respondents.

¶38

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and considering that the petitioner has stated to have submitted all the requisite documents as sought for by the respondent authorities, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with the policy/guidelines regulating the same.

¶39

Accordingly it is directed that the respondent authorities shall consider the case of the petitioner, if the petitioner has submitted all the requisite documents as sought for by the communication dated 02.06.2022 in accordance with the existing/applicable policy of the respondents.

¶40

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from today.

¶41

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

Toleswari Boro v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Toleswari Boro v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

No Jc 104154 Naib Subedar Gd General Duty Ramraj Prasad Majhi Vs the Union of India

3800392 Hav Gd Bhushan Kumar Vs Union of India

Ct Fitter Mufiz Uddin Vs Shri Gp Singh, IPS

Jahirul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Shri Prashank Kumar Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Binapani Rajkhowa Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.