Dibakar Ramchiary vs State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J

Heard Shri S.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri R. Dhar, the learned Standing Counsel, PWD.

Considering the subject matter, the writ petition is taken up disposal at the motion stage itself. The claim is for consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

The facts projected are that the father of the petitioner Kanu Ramchiary was working as a Section Assistant (Grade-III) in the PWD, Rural Road, Division, Nalbari and he had passed away while in service on 03.08.2015. The petitioner claims to have applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 30.03.2016. The case of the petitioner was however rejected by the DLC, Nalbari on 21.03.2018 on the ground that his case was not covered within the 5% quota. The petitioner has projected that the rejection was not communicated to him at that time and such rejection came to be known in an application made under the RTI in the year 2024.

Shri Ahmed, the learned counsel has submitted that while rejecting the case of the petitioner, the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 was not taken into proper consideration as the same provides for recommending the name in any other Department where vacancy exist.

Shri R. Dhar, the learned State Counsel on the other hand has submitted that the death being in the year 2015, any direction for appointment on compassionate ground would be against the very object and purpose of the scheme. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions including the decision of State of West Bengal Vs Debabrata Tiwari reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219 has laid down the principles and the case of the petitioner does not fall within those guidelines requiring any consideration.

The rival submissions have been duly considered.

The death of the father of the petitioner was on 03.08.2015 and the rejection by the DLC was on 31.03.2018. As regards the delay in approaching the Court, the learned counsel has submitted that the information regarding the rejection by the DLC was received by him by an RIT in the year 2024. It is however intriguing as to why the petitioner was waiting till the year 2024 to seek information under the RTI even assuming that the proceeding of the DLC as not communicated.

In 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 almost a decade from the said death, no such directions can be issued. Any direction towards consideration of the claim of the petitioner further would not be in sync with the scheme 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 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.”

This 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 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.”

In 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.