Sonjoni Bhuyan v. The State of Assam and 5 Ors

ORDER Date : 31.07.2024

Heard Mr. S. N. Tamuli, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 6; and Mr. D. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Forest Department, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2, 3, 4 & 5.

¶2The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting this present proceeding, has raised a grievance with regard to non-consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground by the constituted Committees.

¶3As projected in the writ petition; the husband of the petitioner Pranab Kumar Bhuyan, while serving as a Dak Runner in the Divisional Forest Officer, Western Assam Wildlife Division, Dolabari, Tezpur, had died in harness on 13.01.2010. Pursuant to the death of the husband of the petitioner; it is seen that she had submitted a representation before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Wildlife Division, Assam, on Page No.# 3/10

25.03.2010, praying for appointment on compassionate ground. It is also contended that a further representation was also filed by the petitioner for the same purpose on 31.03.2010. The said representations having not been so considered in the manner required and more specifically by the jurisdictional District Level Committee as constituted in the matter; being aggrieved, the present proceeding has been instituted by the petitioner, herein.

¶4Mr. Tamuli, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner having submitted her representations for appointment on compassionate ground within the time-frame so permitted; the respondent authorities were duty bound to consider the same by following the scheme of compassionate appointment holding the field at the relevant point of time and arrive at a conclusion with regard to the said claim of the petitioner.

¶5Per contra, Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Forest Department, has submitted that the authorities in the Environment & Forest Department, Government of Assam, had taken a decision to the effect that all posts of Grade II, III and IV including ministerial staff; shall be treated as a State cadre for the purpose of examining the claim of the applicants applying for compassionate appointment and accordingly, the matter would be placed before the State Level Committee as constituted in the matter. The posts having been so treated to be State Level post, the placement of the same before the jurisdictional District Level Committee was held to be not required to be done in the matter. Accordingly, it is contended that the case of the petitioner was placed before the State Level Committee in its Page No.# 4/10 meeting held on 01.04.2015 along with the cases of 103 other applicants who had applied for compassionate appointment between the years 1996 – 2010.

¶6The case of the petitioner is contended to have been so considered by the State Level Committee, however, her case could not be recommended due to lack of vacancies. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was contended to have been remanded to the jurisdictional Divisional Forest Officer for obtaining his recommendation and for placement of the case of the petitioner before the next meeting of the State Level Committee. However, considering the fact that the petitioner's husband had died on

13.01.2010, the case of the petitioner was, thereafter, not forwarded to the State Level Committee for consideration.

¶7I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶8It is seen that the husband of the petitioner had died-in-harness on

13.01.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner was authorized the family pension along with the other benefits so available, by the respondent authorities. It is also seen that the case of the petitioner, herein, was so considered for appointment on compassionate ground, in the manner as was decided by the departmental authorities, by placing the case of the petitioner before the State Level Committee for such consideration. However, the State Level Committee, on consideration of the case of the petitioner; having concluded that her case could not be recommended for want of vacancies, the further processing of the case of the petitioner, thereafter, could not be Page No.# 5/10 undertaken in the matter.

¶9The husband of the petitioner having died-in-harness on 13.01.2010; it is seen that the family of the petitioner have sustained themselves for the last around 14 years without any appointment on compassionate ground being offered by the respondent authorities to the petitioner and/or to any of her family members. The materials brought on record would also reveal that the petitioner, herein, had also not pursued her representation submitted in the year 2010, for being considered for her appointment on compassionate ground, diligently.

¶10The materials available on record would further reveal that after the death of the husband of the petitioner so occasioning on 13.01.2010; almost 14 years have elapsed and accordingly, after a considerable lapse of time; the purport for appointment on compassionate ground naturally stands diluted and lost.

¶11Further, there is no explanation available on record as to why the grievance of the petitioner on account of non-consideration of her case, was not agitated by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing an appropriate application during the period after 2010, till institution of the present proceeding on 25.09.2019.

¶12The materials on record reveal that the family of the petitioner had sustained for the last about 14 years and as such, the immediate object behind the grant of appointment on compassionate ground being to Page No.# 6/10 mitigate the hardship caused to the family due to death of the bread earner in the family and also, it being a settled position of law that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed at any point of time after the death of the government servant, the object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis occasioning at the time of the death of the deceased of the Government servant; a direction for consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, is not called for.

¶13The claim of the petitioner as on date is a stale claim and the same if allowed to be considered at this distant point of time, would amount to treating compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on the line of succession.

¶14In the case on hand, the family having survived for such a long period of time after the death of the husband of the petitioner had occasioned on

13.01.2010, the acceptance of the claim of the petitioner at this distant point of time, would not be in furtherance of the object behind the purport of a scheme for providing appointment on compassionate ground.

¶15The issues as arising in the present proceedings is covered by the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari & ors.[reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219], wherein the Hon'ble Court upon considering the earlier decision available in the matter, had concluded as follows:

Page No.# 7/10 "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.

¶33The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate 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 egard 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.

¶34As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment Page No.# 8/10 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.

¶35Considering 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 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.

¶36Laches 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."

¶37Whether 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.

Page No.# 9/10

¶38In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 this 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."

¶39While 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.

¶40Further, 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."

¶16As noticed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari(supra), the operation of a policy/scheme for compassionate appointment is founded on consideration of immediacy.

¶17In that view of the matter, the issue involved in the present proceeding, being a stale issue; this Court refrains from proceeding to issue any direction requiring consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in pursuance to the death of her Page No.# 10/10 husband in harness, occasioning in the year 2010; this writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/10 GAHC010240202019 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/7486/2019o SONJONIoBHUYANo W/O.oLT.oPRANABoKUMARoBHUYAN,oR/O.oVILL.oSARTHEBARI,oP.O.o SARTHEBARI,oDIST.oBARPETA,oASSAM,oPIN-781307. VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo5oORS.o REP.oBYoTHEoCHIEFoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM,oDISPUR,o GUWAAHTI,oDIST.oKAMRUPo(M),oASSAM,oPIN-781006. 2:THEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECY. oTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM oFORESToDEPTT. oGOVT.oOFoASSAM oDISPURoGUWAHATI oDIST.oKAMRUPo(M) oASSAMoPIN-781006. 3:THEoPRINCIPALoCHIEFoCONSERVATORoOFoFORESToANDoHEADoOFoTHEo FORESToFORCE oARANYAoBHAWAN oPANJABARI oP.O.oPANJABARI oDIST.oKAMRUPo(M) oASSAMoPIN-781037. 4:THEoPRINCIPALoCHIEFoCONSERVATORoOFoFOREST oWILDLIFEoDIVISION oBASISTHA oP.O.oBASISTHA oGUWAHATI oDIST.oKAMRUPo(M) oASSAM oPIN-781029. Page No.# 2/10 5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER WESTERN ASSAM WILDLIFE DIVISION DOLABARI TEZPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM. 6:THE DY. COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S N TAMULI, MS. A BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR