Gauhati High Court
Sri Sony Das vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 13 July, 2026
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010138752025
2026:GAU-AS:9485
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3717/2025
SRI SONY DAS
S/O- LATE SRIKANTA DAS.
R/O- VILL.- KARNAMADHU, P.O.- KARNAMADHU, P.S.- KARIMGANJ, PIN-
788712. DIST.- SRI BHUMI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY , HOME AND PERSONAL
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM.
2:DIRECTOR GENENRAL OF POLICE
ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER
GUWAHATI-07
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI.
3:DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (A)
ASSSAM
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-07.
4:DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (SC)
SILCHAR
P.O.- SILCHAR
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM.
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
HAILAKANDI TOWN
P.O.- HAILAKANDI
DIST.- HAILAKANDI
Page No.# 2/8
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S NATH, R. SAHA,MR. N G KUNDU
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 13.07.2026
Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government
Advocate appearing for the State respondents.
2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate grounds
on the premise that his father, who was serving as an AB Constable
under the Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi District, died in harness
on 21.04.2012 due to a sudden heart attack.
3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that at the time of the
death of his father in the year 2012, he was only 10 years of age and
was studying in school. It is further his case that despite the untimely
demise of his father, who was the sole earning member of the family,
his mother somehow managed to maintain the family from the family
pension and enabled him to complete his education. He eventually
passed the HSLC Examination in the year 2021. Thereafter, upon
attaining majority and acquiring the requisite qualification for
appointment to a Grade-III or Grade-IV post, the petitioner, in the year
2023, submitted an application before the Office of the Superintendent
Page No.# 3/8
of Police, Hailakandi, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds
in accordance with his qualification.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Office of the
Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi, by letter dated 09.09.2024,
requested him to appear before the Assistant Commissioner and
Executive Magistrate, Hailakandi, on 12.09.2024 along with all original
documents for verification so that his case could be placed before the
next available meeting of the District Level Committee (DLC).
According to the petitioner, since no further action was taken
thereafter, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ
petition.
5. Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits
that since the petitioner was a minor at the time of the death of his
father, he could not have applied earlier. He further submits that the
authorities did not reject his application on the ground of delay when it
was submitted in the year 2023. On the contrary, they processed the
application by directing him to produce the original documents and
thereafter forwarded his case for consideration before the DLC. It is,
therefore, contended that the petitioner’s case deserves to be
considered for appointment on compassionate grounds.
6. Per contra, Mr. R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government
Advocate appearing for the State respondents, vehemently opposes
the prayer made in the writ petition primarily on the ground that the
claim has been raised after an inordinate delay. He submits that the
very object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate
succor to the bereaved family and not to create another source of
Page No.# 4/8
public employment. He further submits that there is no rule or policy
framed by the State of Assam which permits a minor, upon attaining
majority, to claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right. In
support of his submissions, he relies upon the following decisions:
i) State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others,
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219.
ii) Tapan Saikia vs. The Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman,
State Level Committee for Compassionate Appointment
and 5 Others, in WP(C) No. 6919/2023, decided by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have
perused the materials available on record.
8. It appears that the petitioner’s father died in harness on
21.04.2012. It is an admitted fact that at the time of his father’s death,
the petitioner was only ten years old. Upon attaining majority, he
submitted his application seeking compassionate appointment only in
the year 2023, nearly eleven years after the death of his father. The
present writ petition was also instituted only on 23.06.2025, i.e., more
than thirteen years after the death of the employee.
9. The Apex Court has consistently held that the object underlying
the scheme of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of a
deceased Government employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis
arising from the death of its sole breadwinner. In Debabrata Tiwari
(supra), the Apex Court categorically held that compassionate
Page No.# 5/8
appointment is not a vested right but is intended solely to alleviate the
immediate financial hardship suffered by the dependants of the
deceased employee. Consequently, a claim raised after the lapse of a
considerable period from the date of death ordinarily cannot be
entertained. The underlying rationale is that where the family has been
able to sustain itself for such a prolonged period, the element of
immediacy, which is the very foundation of compassionate
appointment, stands completely diluted.
10. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner was a minor at the time of the death of his father and,
therefore, could not have submitted an application earlier also cannot
be accepted.
11. It is evident that although the petitioner was only ten years old
when his father passed away and was then pursuing his studies, his
mother was able to maintain the family and provide him with the
necessary education. It is also seen that the petitioner successfully
completed his education. It is, therefore, apparent that the family was
able to sustain itself despite the demise of the sole breadwinner.
12. Though this Court has sympathy for the petitioner, relief cannot
be granted merely on the basis of sympathy or empathy. The Apex
Court, in Debabrata Tiwari (supra), has unequivocally held that a
belated claim for compassionate appointment cannot be entertained,
irrespective of whose fault occasioned the delay. The mere fact that
the petitioner’s case was processed by the authorities and forwarded
to the District Level Committee does not create any enforceable right
Page No.# 6/8
in his favour nor can it override the settled legal principles governing
compassionate appointment.
13. The decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Tapan
Saikia (supra) also makes it abundantly clear that the mere fact that
an applicant was a minor at the time of the death of the Government
employee does not entitle him to claim compassionate appointment
upon attaining majority after the lapse of several years. The relevant
observations made therein are reproduced below:
“Be that as it may, responding to the petitioner’s case, Mr. Dhar, learned Addl.
Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court
rendered in the case of State of Manipur Vs. Md. Rajaodin reported in 2003 (7)
SCC 511, to submit that there is no circular in the State of Assam permitting a
minor to submit application for appointment on compassionate ground upon
attaining majority, several years after the death of the Govt. employee. Mr. Dhar
further submits that since the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground
is to mitigate the immediate financial hardship of the deceased’s family, an
application of such nature cannot be considered favourably after the lapse of 21
years since the demise of the Govt. employee.
Mr. Barman, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has, however, submitted that
since his client was a minor at the relevant point of time, there was no delay in
submitting the application.
In the case of Md. Rajaodin (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with
the above issue. The observations made in paragraph 11 of the judgment would
be relevant for the purpose of this case and therefore, is being reproduced here-
in-below for ready reference:-
’11. In Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. [1989 (4)
SCC 468] it was observed that in all claims of appointment on
compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The
purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate
the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such
appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the
Page No.# 7/8family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of
his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically
otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be
appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above view was
reiterated in Phoolwati (Smt.) Vs. Union of India & Ors. [1991 Supp. (2)
SCC 689] and Union of India and Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Singh [1995 (6) SCC
476]. In Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. Vs. Pushpendra Kumar
and Ors. [1998 (5) SCC 192] it was observed that in matter of
compassionate appointment there cannot be insistence for a particular post.
Out of purely humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that
unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to
make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of
the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care
has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate
employment which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions
does not unduly interfere with the right of those other persons who are
eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would
have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made
on compassionate grounds of the dependent of the deceased employee. As it
is in the nature of exception to the general provisions it cannot substitute the
provision to which it is an exception and thererby nullify the main provision
by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision.’
There is no doubt or dispute about the fact that there is no Govt. circular in the
State of Assam permitting a minor to submit belated application seeking
appointment on compassionate ground upon attaining majority. Rather, the
standing Govt. circulars, at the relevant point of time had laid down that such
application should be filed in a time bound manner and consider as
expeditiously as possible. It is to be noted that even if the age of the petitioner on
the date of filing the original application in the year 2007 is taken into account,
even then it is apparent that he had survived more than 16 years without any
Govt. employment. Therefore, there is no justification for this Court to presume
that element of compassion is still present in the case of the applicant/ writ
petitioner.
For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court, as noted above, this Court is of opinion that there is no good ground to
entertain this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.”
14. A reading of the aforesaid judgment leaves no room for this
Court to take a view different from that adopted by the learned
Page No.# 8/8
Coordinate Bench in Tapan Saikia (supra). In the present case,
the petitioner’s father died on 21.04.2012, whereas the application
seeking compassionate appointment was submitted only in the year
2023. Such a belated claim defeats the very object of compassionate
appointment, which is intended to provide immediate financial
assistance to the family of the deceased employee to tide over the
sudden crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner. Once the family
has survived for more than a decade without such appointment, the
very basis for invoking the compassionate appointment scheme ceases
to exist.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down by the
Apex Court in Debabrata Tiwari (supra), as followed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Tapan Saikia (supra), this Court
is of the considered opinion that no case for interference under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition is,
accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
