Ripunjoy Kumar Barua v. The State of Assam and 4 Ors

JUDGMENT & ORDER Advocate for the petitioner : Shri B. Saharia, Advocate

Advocate for the respondents : Shri G. Pegu, GA, Assam. Ms. D. Muchahary, SC, Secondary Education Department. Date of hearing : 18.09.2024 Date of judgment : 18.09.2024 Heard Shri B. Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri G. Pegu, learned State Counsel as well as Ms. D. Muchahary, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department. Page No.# 3/6

¶2The matter pertains to a claim for appointment on compassionate ground. It is the projected case of the petitioner that his father Narendra Kumar Baruah, was serving as an Assistant Teacher in the Pachim Rangamati High School, Darrang who had died in harness on 13.07.2013. The petitioner who claims to be eligible had duly applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The District Level Committee, however in its meeting held on 22.06.2016 had rejected the case of the petitioner by citing certain reasons.

¶3It is the case of the petitioner that the reasons cited were not in accordance with law and accordingly on 09.10.2017, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Darrang had issued a communication to the Inspector of Schools, Darrang District Circle to reconsider the matter.

¶4Shri Saharia, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the said communication, nothing has been done and the petitioner was under a legitimate expectation of a fair consideration of his case.

¶5Per contra, both Shri Pegu, the learned State Counsel and Ms. Muchahary, the learned Standing Counsel have 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 06.09.2024 i.e. after more than 10 years. It is submitted that the objective of giving appointment on compassionate ground is only to enable the bereaved family to overcome the sudden crisis faced. They have also cited the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., reported in AIR 2023 SC 1467 and have submitted that after 10 years, no direction can be issued for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶6The rival submissions have been duly considered. Page No.# 4/6

¶7The 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.

¶8In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the death of the government employee was in the year 2013 and in the meantime, more than a decade have passed. There is no acceptable or cogent reason explaining the delay for the period from 2016 when the meeting of the DLC was held. As on today, more than 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:

"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 Page No.# 5/6 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."

¶9This Court has noticed that on the aspect of delay, the Hon'ble Supreme 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 Page No.# 6/6 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."

¶10In 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.#o1/6 GAHC010184712024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/4760/2024ooooooooo RIPUNJOYoKUMARoBARUAo SONoOFoLATEoNARAYANoKUMARoBARUA,o RESIDENToOFoVILLAGEoPATAISINGoPARA,o P.O.-oAULACHOWKA,oDARRANG,o PIN-o784125. VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo4oORSo REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARYoTOoTHEo GOVERNMENToOFoASSAM,o EDUCATIONo(SECONDARY)oDEPARTMENT,o DISPUR,oGUWAHATI-o781006. 2:THEoDIRECTOR oSECONDARYoEDUCATION oASSAM oKAHILIPARA oGUWAHATI-19. 3:THEoINSPECTORoOFoSCHOOLS oDARRANG oDISTRICT-oDARRANG oASSAM o PIN-o784125. 4:THEoSTATEoLEVELoCOMMITTEEo(FORoCOMPASSIONATEoAPPOINTMENT) oREPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoCHIEFoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM o GUWAHATI-o781006. Page No.# 2/6 5:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE ( FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT) REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DARRANG DISTRICT ASSAM PIN- 784125 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA, MS S R MAZARBHUIYA,S. M. ZINNA,MS A BEGUM,MR. B SAHARIA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., GA, ASSAM B E F O R E Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI