Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/14 vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 30 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010028082023
2025:GAU-AS:9794
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1139/2023
HIRAK DEKA
S/O- LATE BHAGAWAN CH. DEKA, R/O- RUDRESWAR, NORTH GUWAHATI,
P.O. RANGMAHAL, PIN- 781030, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DGE, SHRAM SHAKTI
BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-1.
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT DGE
SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN
RAFI MARG
NEW DELHI-1.
3:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL
GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DGE
SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN
RAFI MARG
NEW DELHI-1.
4:THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (EMPL.)
GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN
RAFI MARG
NEW DELHI-1
Page No.# 2/14
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U J SAIKIA,
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. D J DAS (r-1 to 4)
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
30.07.2025
Heard Mr. U.J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.J. Das, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner is seeking direction for appointing the petitioner
on compassionate ground.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the father of the petitioner
died-in-harness on 24.12.2003. Thereafter, the mother of the
petitioner submits an application before the authority for giving her
appointment under compassionate ground on 17.06.2004. However,
the application of the mother of the petitioner was not considered by
the authority for a considerable period. In the meanwhile, the
petitioner has completed his graduation and as such, the mother of
the petitioner made application to consider the name of the petitioner
for compassionate appointment in place of her. Thereafter, the
respondent No. 4 forwarded his name for appointment on
compassionate ground to the respondent No. 3, however, since the
petitioner has not been appointed till date, the present Writ Petition
Page No.# 3/14
has been filed.
4. Mr. U. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the mother of the petitioner has been repeatedly from the very
beginning since his father died on 24.12.2003 was filing
representations before the respondent authorities for appointment on
compassionate ground, however, the same has not been considered.
He submits that since the petitioner has been promptly pursuing the
claim for compassionate appointment immediately since the death of
the father, there has been no delay in approaching this Court.
5. Per contra, Mr. D.J. Das, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 submits that in view of the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata
Tiwari, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219, the instant Writ
Petition having been filed after a delay of 20 years for issuing of a
direction for appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground, is
liable to be rejected at the outset on the ground of delay.
6. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments
advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the contending parties
and have perused the materials available on record.
7. Apt to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Debabrata Tiwari (supra), before entering into the merit of the
matter. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case while dealing with the
issue as whether applications for compassionate appointments could
be considered after a delay of several years, has held that after a
delay of several years, either on the part of the applicant claiming
Page No.# 4/14
compassionate appointment, or on the part of the authorities in
deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost.
Paragraphs 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 & 40 of the aforesaid
judgment are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
“30. The majesty of death is that it is a great leveller for, it makes
no distinction between the young and the old or the rich and the
poor. Death being as a consequence of birth at some point of time is
inevitable for every being. Thus, while death is certain, its timing is
uncertain. Further, a deceased employee does not always leave
behind valuable assets; he may at times leave behind poverty to be
faced by the immediate members of his family. Therefore, what
should be done to ensure that death of an individual does not
mean economic death for his family? The State’s obligation in this
regard, confined to its employees who die in harness, has given
rise to schemes and rules providing for compassionate appointment
of an eligible member of his family as an instance of providing
immediate succour to such a family. Support for such a provision
has been derived from the provisions of Part IV of the Constitution
of India, i.e., Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy.
31. It may be apposite to refer to the following decisions of this
Court, on the rationale behind a policy or scheme for
compassionate appointment and the considerations that ought to
guide determination of claims for compassionate appointment.
i. In Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468, this
Court observed that in all claims for appointment on
compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in
appointment. That the purpose of providing appointment on
compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardship caused
due to the death of the bread earner in the family. Such
appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to
redeem the family in distress.
ii. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4
SCC 138, this Court observed that the object of granting
compassionate employment is to enable the family of a
deceased government employee to tide over the sudden crisis
by providing gainful employment to one of the dependants of
the deceased who is eligible for such employment. That mere
death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family
to such source of livelihood; the Government or the public
authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of
Page No.# 5/14the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied that,
but for the provision of employment, the family will not be
able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the
eligible member of the family, provided a scheme or rules
provide for the same. This Court further clarified in the said
case that compassionate appointment is not a vested right
which can be exercised at any time after the death of a
government servant. That the object being to enable the
family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the
time of the death of the solebreadwinner, compassionate
employment cannot be claimed and offered after lapse of
considerable amount of time and after the crisis is overcome.
iii. In Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, (1997)
8 SCC 85, (“Hakim Singh”) this Court placed much emphasis
on the need for immediacy in the manner in which claims for
compassionate appointment are made by the dependants
and decided by the concerned authority. This Court
cautioned that it should not be forgotten that the object of
compassionate appointment is to give succour to the family to
tide over the sudden financial crisis that has befallen the
dependants on account of the untimely demise of its sole
earning member. Therefore, this Court held that it would not
be justified in directing appointment for the claimants therein
on compassionate grounds, fourteen years after the death of
the government employee. That such a direction would
amount to treating a claim. for compassionate appointment
as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of
succession.
iv. This Court in State of Haryana v. Ankur Gupta, (2003) 7
SCC 704 AIR 2003 SC 3797 held that in order for a claim for
compassionate appointment to be considered reasonable and
permissible, it must be shown that a sudden crisis occurred
in the family of the deceased as a result of death of an
employee who had served the State and died while in
service. It was further observed that appointment on
compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of
right and cannot be made available to all types of posts
irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the
deceased employee.
v. There is a consistent line of authority of this Court on the
principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is
given only for meeting the immediate unexpected hardship
which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the
bread earner vide Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1
SCC 301. When an appointment is made on compassionate
grounds, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it
Page No.# 6/14
seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless
compassion, vide I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi,
(2007) 6 SCC 162. In the same vein is the decision of this
Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra,
(2008) 11 SCC 384, wherein it was declared that
appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of
recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the
deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis.
vi. In State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sajad Ahmed Mir,
(2006) 5 SCC 766: AIR 2006 SC 2743, the facts before this
Court were that the government employee (father of the
applicant therein) died in March, 1987. The application was
made by the applicant after four and half years in
September, 1991 which was rejected in March, 1996. The
writ petition was filed in June, 1999 which was dismissed
by the learned Single Judge in July, 2000. When the Division
Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years had
passed from the date of death of the father of the applicant.
This Court remarked that the said facts were relevant and
material as they would demonstrate that the family survived
in spite of death of the employee. Therefore, this Court held
that granting compassionate appointment after a lapse of a
considerable amount of time after the death of the
government employee, would not be in furtherance of the
object of a scheme for compassionate appointment.
vii. In Shashi Kumar, this Court speaking through Dr. D.Y.
Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was) observed that
compassionate appointment is an exception to the general
rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the
State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord
with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. That the basis of
the policy is that it recognizes that a family of a deceased
employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship
upon the untimely death of the employee while in service.
That it is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the
basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate
appointment. The pertinent observations of this Court have
been extracted as under:
“41. Insofar as the individual facts pertaining to the
Respondent are concerned, it has emerged from the
record that the Writ Petition before the High Court was
instituted on 11 May 2015. The application for
compassionate appointment was submitted on 8 May
2007. On 15 January 2008 the Additional Secretary
had required that the amount realized by way of
pension be included in the income statement of the
Page No.# 7/14family. The Respondent waited thereafter for a period
in excess of seven years to move a petition Under
Article 226 of the Constitution. In Umesh Kumar
Nagpal (supra), this Court has emphasized that the
basis of a scheme of compassionate appointment lies
in the need of providing immediate assistance to the
family of the deceased employee. This sense of
immediacy is evidently lost by the delay on the part of
the dependant in seeking compassionate
appointment.”
32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the
following principles emerge:
i. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a
departure from the general provisions providing for
appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of
recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment
being made without following the said procedure, it is in the
nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be
resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e.,
to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden
financial crisis.
ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of
recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent
scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see
that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the
means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the
deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which
can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate
employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of
time and after the crisis is over.
iv. That compassionate appointment should be provided
immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to
keep such a case pending for years.
v. In determining as to whether the family is in financial
crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including
the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if
any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital
status of its members, together with the income from any
other source.
33. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate
Page No.# 8/14
employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to
tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-earner
which has left the family in penury and without any means of
livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having
regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided,
the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a
provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the
dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such
appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no
avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the
deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of
death of a bread-winner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a
compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters
concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so,
the object of the scheme of compassionate would be frustrated.
Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of
the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking
compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its
significance and this would be a relevant circumstance which must
weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for
the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for
consideration.
34. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for
compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased
employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of
the dependants of the deceased employee being employed on
compassionate grounds. The financial condition of the family of the
deceased, at the time of the death of the deceased, is the primary
consideration that ought to guide the authorities’ decision in the
matter.
35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first
Instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate
appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we
are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged
delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate
appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of
immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances
of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better,
since the time of the death of the government employee. In such
circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided
by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the
deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by
availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting
compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court
in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for
Page No.# 9/14
compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of
inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the
Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right
and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship
faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as
a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment
may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time
since the death of the government employee.
36. Laches or undue delay, the blame-worthy conduct of a person
in approaching a Court of Equity in England for obtaining
discretionary relief which disentitled him for grant of such relief
was explained succinctly by Sir Barnes Peacock, in Lindsay
Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong, [1874] 3 P.C. 221 as under:
“Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an
arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be
practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party
has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be
regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his
conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that
remedy, yet put the other party in a situation, in which it
would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were
afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of
time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an
argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is
founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not
amounting to a bar by any statute or limitations, the validity
of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially
equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such
cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts
done during the interval, which might affect either party and
cause a balance of Justice or injustice in taking the one
course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy.”
37. Whether the above doctrine of laches which disentitled grant of
relief to a party by Equity Court of England, could disentitle the
grant of relief to a person by the High Court in the exercise of its
power under Article 226 of our Constitution, came up for
consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Moon
Mills Ltd. v. M. R. Meher, President, Industrial Court, Bombay, AIR
1967 SC 1450. In the said case, it was regarded as a principle that
disentitled a party for grant of relief from a High Court in the
exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
38. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 this
Page No.# 10/14
Court restated the principle articulated in earlier pronouncements
in the following words:
“9. the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not
ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the
acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on
the part of the Petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily
explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant
relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this
Rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court
does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the
extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion
and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new
injustices, and if writ Jurisdiction is exercised after
unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not
only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third
parties. It was pointed out that when writ Jurisdiction is
invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of
third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor
which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether
or not to exercise such jurisdiction.”
39. While we are mindful of the fact that there is no period of
limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution, ordinarily, a writ petition should be filed within a
reasonable time, vide Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6
SCC 538; NDMC v. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278.
40. Further, simply because the Respondents-Writ Petitioners
submitted their applications to the relevant authority in the year
2005-2006, it cannot be said that they diligently perused the
matter and had not slept over their rights. In this regard, it may be
apposite to refer to the decision of this Court in State of Uttaranchal
v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, wherein the
following observations were made:
“19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that
even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of
representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it
does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause
of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere
submission of representation to the competent authority does
not arrest time.”
8. Reading of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, it is
apparent that the object of providing grant of compassionate
Page No.# 11/14
appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide
over the suddent crisis due to the death of the bread earner which has
left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood.
9. It is thus with this very object that unless some source of
livelihood is provided, the family could not be in a position to make both
ends meet, appointment on compassionate ground is provided.
However, the same is not a vested right. That apart, appointment on
compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment.
10. Thus, where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of
death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking
compassionate appointment ceases to exist and looses its signification
and thereby disentitling the applicant for appointment on compassionate
grounds.
11. The Apex Court, as noted in the aforesaid decision, has clearly
held that in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the
part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the
authorities in deciding such claim, the claim for compassionate
appointment is not maintainable.
12. In the instant case, it appears that the father of the petitioner
i.e., late Bhagawan Ch. Deka, while serving in the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour and Employ (DGET), Vocational Rehabilitation
Centre for Handicapped, Rehabari, Guwahati as Workshop Attendant,
died on 24.12.2003 leaving behind his wife i.e. the mother of the
petitioner and two daughters and the petitioner.
Page No.# 12/14
13. It appears that though the mother of the petitioner immediately
after the expiry of the father submitted applications before the
respondent No. 2 on 17.06.2004, 08.01.2005, 15.11.2007, 27.08.2008,
08.11.2008, 20.12.2008, 17.08.2009 and 31.05.2010, no appointment
on compassionate ground was made.
14. It further appears that in the meantime, the petitioner having
completed his graduation in the year 2016, the mother of the
petitioner requested the respondent authority to appoint the petitioner
on compassionate ground, however, since the same also did not borne
any fruit, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
15. The respondent authority on 04.12.2023, filed affidavit-in-
opposition before this Court stating as hereunder:-
“10. That with regard to the statements made in
paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Writ Petition the answering
deponent does not admit the fact which is not borne out of
records. Further, it is stated that an application dated
02.02.2005 was received from Smt. Son Pahi Deka wife of
Late Sh. Bhagawan Ch. Deka, Ex-Workshop Attendant for
appointment on Compassionate ground in the Directorate
General of Employment, Ministry of Labour& Employment.
As per available records, the case of Smt. Son PahiDeka was
duly considered by the Committee for Compassionate
appointment in the Directorate General of Employment,
Ministry of Labour & Employment in its meetings held during
the year 2005, 2008 & 2011. The case of Smt. Son PahiDeka
w/o Late Sh. Bhagawan Ch. Deka i.e. mother of Petitioner
was last considered on 16.03.2011 in the meeting of the
Committee for appointment on Compassionate ground. As per
Department of Personnel & Training’s Scheme and its
subsequent amendments issued from time to time, the
Compassionate Appointment are to be considered keeping in
view the merits of the cases. While considering a request for
appointment on Compassionate Appointment a balanced and
objective assessment of the financial condition of the family
has to be made taking into accounts its assets and liabilities
Page No.# 13/14(including the benefits received under various welfare
schemes) and all other relevant factors such as the presence
of an earning member, size of family, ages of the children
and essential needs of the family, etc. Further it is mentioned
that as per Department Training’s Office Memorandum
Personnel No.14014/19/2022-Estt(D) dated 05.05.2003, the
maximum time a person’s name can be kept under
consideration for offering Compassionate Appointment was
three years at that time, subject to the condition that the
prescribed Committee has reviewed and certified the
penurious condition of the applicant at the end of the first
and the second year. After three years, if Compassionate
Appointment is not possible to be offered to the Applicant,
his/her case will be finally closed and will not be considered
again. Accordingly, the case of Smt. Son Pahi Deka wife of
Late Sh. Bhagawan Ch. Deka, Ex-Workshop Attendant was
considered in several meetings from the year 2005 to 2011
on receipt of request for appointment on Compassionate
ground in the Directorate General of Employment, Ministry of
Labour & Employment. But, her case ranked low on the
merits every time and hence, not recommended by the
Committee for Compassionate appointment. Then, the case of
Smt. Son PahiDeka was closed because her case was
considered back to back for three times as per existing
guidelines at that time and the case once closed cannot be
re-opened as per Department of Personnel & Training’s
guidelines/instructions vide FAQ No.14014/02/2012-Estt.
(D) 30.05.2013. The three years’ time-limit guideline was
implemented by the Department of Personnel & Training with
the view to give Compassionate appointment to genuine and
deserving cases. From the above, the case of Smt. Son
PahiDeka was considered fairly and as per existing
rules/guidelines of the Scheme for appointment on
Compassionate grounds at that time.
Copy of the scheme for
compassionate appointment is
annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE - A."
16. Reading of the aforesaid paragraphs, it appears that the stand of
the respondent authorities is that the case of the petitioner’s mother
was duly considered by the Committee for Compassionate
appointment in its meeting held in the year 2005, 2008 and 2011, and
was last considered on 16.03.2011. It further appears that the
Page No.# 14/14respondent authorities after considering the case of the petitioner’s
mother, was pleased not to recommend the name of the petitioner’s
mother for compassionate appointment.
17. Accordingly, it appears that the case as regards the appointment
of the petitioner’s mother on compassionate ground was considered
back to back for three times and the same having been rejected, the
matter stands finally closed.
18. It appears that despite the case of the petitioner’s mother for
appointment on compassionate grounds having been rejected and
closed, the instant petition has been filed almost after 20 years since
the death of the father.
19. Apparent thus, that the present Writ Petition has been filed
almost after 20 years since the death of the father. That apart, the
matter was earlier considered and rejected.
20. That being so, the Writ Petition is not maintanable in view of the
delay as indicated herein above. Hence, the Writ Petition fails.
21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant