Saurav Lahon v. The State of Assam and 3 Ors

JUDGMENT & ORDER

Heard Shri BK Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri R Dhar, learned State Counsel, Assam as well as Ms. DS Neog, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department, Assam.

¶2The claim pertains to an appointment on compassionate ground.

¶3The facts projected are that the father of the petitioner, Atul Lahon, who was working as a Pressure Pump Operator in the Irrigation Department, had died-in-harness on 06.07.2013. The petitioner had made an application for appointment on compassionate ground which was forwarded on 06.01.2014.

Page No.# 3/7

¶4It is the case of the petitioner that though in the District Level Committee meeting held on 18.09.2014, the name of the petitioner was reflected, there was neither any rejection nor recommendation. It is submitted that persons whose names were considered in the meeting held on 18.09.2014 was again considered in subsequent DLC meeting and was recommended.

¶5Shri Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a policy decision was taken for one-time consideration of all cases pertaining to compassionate appointment where the death was prior to 31.03.2017 and the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji had issued a communication on 14.06.2022 to submit all pending cases. However, the case of the petitioner has not been considered. He has submitted that once, a policy decision has been taken for consideration of all cases where the death was prior to 31.03.2017, non-consideration of the case of the petitioner would be discriminatory. He has also submitted that similarly situated cases have been considered and recommended. The learned counsel has, however, not been able to produce any such final orders of appointment nor any details of any appointment made have been pleaded in the writ petition.

¶6Per contra, Shri Dhar, learned State Counsel has raised the issue of delay and laches in approaching this Court. It is submitted that the death was in the year 2013 and the writ petition was filed only on 05.08.2023 i.e. after about 10 years. It is submitted that the objective of the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground is only to give immediate relief to a bereaved family which has lost the sole breadwinner. The learned State Counsel has also referred to the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., reported in AIR 2023 SC 1467 and has submitted that after 10 years, no direction can be issued for appointment on compassionate ground.

Page No.# 4/7

¶7Ms. Neog, learned Standing Counsel has endorsed the submissions of the learned State Counsel, Shri Dhar.

¶8The rival submissions have been considered.

¶9The present challenge is primarily based on a policy decision to consider all cases for compassionate appointment where the death is prior to 31.03.2017 as a one-time measure. Prima facie, it appears that in the DLC meeting held on

18.09.2014, the case of the petitioner was, indeed considered and amongst the 10 numbers of aspirants, one aspirant was recommended by the DLC considering his economic condition. The same indicates that there was a one-time consideration. The policy is only for those cases which were yet to be considered and therefore, effectively the petitioner's case would not be covered under such policy.

¶10In any case, the objective of offering an appointment on compassionate ground is only to give immediate succour to the bereaved family which has lost the sole breadwinner and after a decade from the said death, no such directions can be issued.

¶11In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the death of the government employee was in the year 2013 and in the meantime, a decade has passed. There is no acceptable or cogent reason explaining the delay for the period from 2014 when the meeting of the DLC was held. As on today, almost 10 years have passed and any direction towards consideration of the claim of the petitioner further would not be in sync with the claim of compassionate appointment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) has laid down as follows:

Page No.# 5/7 "7.2. 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."

¶12This Court has noticed that on the aspect of delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Page No.# 6/7 Court in the aforesaid case while examining the said aspect from the context of the scheme has also laid down that even if the delay is on account of the authorities, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. The relevant part as observed in paragraph 7.5 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below:-

"7.5. 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, an noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as thought 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."

Page No.# 7/7

¶13In view of the aforesaid discussions and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), no case for interference is made out and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/7 GAHC010170422023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/4503/2023ooooooooo SAURAVoLAHONo SONoOFoLATEoATULoLAHON,o RESIDENToOFoSOCIETYo(SILAPATHAR),o POLICEoSTATION-oSILAPATHAR,o DISTRICT-oDHEMAJI,oASSAM. VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo3oORSo REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARY,o TOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM,o IRRIGATIONoDEPARTMENT,oDISPUR,o GUWAHATI-o06. 2:THEoDY.oCOMMISSIONER-CUM-CHAIRMANoOFoDISTRICToLEVELo COMMITTEEoFORoCOMPASSIONATEoAPPOINTMENT oDHEMAJI oDISTRICT-oDHEMAJI oASSAM. 3:THEoADDITIONALoDEPUTYoCOMMISSIONER oDHEMAJI oDISTRICT-oDHEMAJI oASSAM. 4:THEoEXECUTIVEoENGINEER oDHEMAJIoDIVISION oIRRIGATION oDISTRICT-oDHEMAJI oASSAMo Page No.# 2/7 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K GOGOI, C. DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI For the Petitioner : Shri BK Gogoi, Advocate, Shri C Deka, Advocate. For the Respondents : Shri R Dhar, Govt. Advocate, Assam, Ms. DS Neog, SC, Irrigation Deptt. Assam. Date of Hearing : 31.07.2024. Date of Judgment : 31.07.2024.