Page No.

# 1/50

GAHC010045752021

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/1646/2021

BHASKAR KONWAR
S/O LATE GOBIN KONWAR, R/O VILL. TIMONA LUNPURIA GAON, P.O.
LAHOWAL, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF
ASSAM, SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY 06

2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE

ON COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT FOR SECONDARY EDUCATION
DEPTT. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 06

3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION CUM DIRECTOR OF NON

FORMAL AND ADULT EDUCATION

ASSAM
JATIA
KAHILIPARA ROAD
GUWAHATI 19

4:THE DIST. LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT

REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DIBRUGARH
P.O. AND DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN 786001

5:THE DIST. ADULT EDUCATION OFFICER

 Page No.# 2/50

DIBRUGARH
P.O. AND DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN 78600

Linked Case : WP(C)/7947/2019

SARASWATI SINHA
D/O- LT KULACHANDRA SINHA
R/O- VILL AND P.O. BIDYANAGAR
DIST- KARIMGANJ
ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-6

2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC)

REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GHY-06
3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GHY-19
4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC)
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
THE DY. COMMISSIONER
KARIMGANJ
P.O. AND DIST- KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
PIN- 788166
5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
KDC
KARIMGANJ
P.O. KARIMGANJ
DIST- KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
PIN- 788710
 Page No.# 3/50

Linked Case : WP(C)/1446/2019

KIRAN MUDOI
D/O. LT. SATRAN MUDOI
VILL. NONOI MUDOIONI
P.O. NONOI
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM-782001.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

TO BE REP. BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL B
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.

2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

DEPTT. OF HOME
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (FOR SELECTION ON COMPASSIONATE
GROUND)

REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE

REP. BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER

NAGAON
P.O. AND DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM.
5:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE

NAGAON
P.O. AND DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM-782001.
------------

Linked Case : WP(C)/6114/2021

SUHEL ALOM CHOUDHURY

S/O LT. NASIR UDDIN CHOUDHURY
 Page No.# 4/50

VILL. RUPAIBALI
P.O. HAZARIGRAM BAZAR
P.S. LAKHIPUR
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 6

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPTT.

ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI 19
3:THE DIST. LEVEL COMMITTEE
CACHAR
(FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT) REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CACHAR
P.O. SILCHAR
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
4:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

DISPUR
GUWAHATI 6
5:THE ADDL. CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL B DEPTT. DISPUR.

6:THE DIST. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER

CACHAR
P.O. AND DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
------------

Linked Case : WP(C)/1562/2018

DILSHAD AHMED LASKAR

 Page No.# 5/50

S/O. LT. AKMAL UDDIN LASKAR

R/O. SATSANGA ASHRAM ROAD
SILCHAR
P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788007

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.

2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL (B)

DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE ON COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE ON COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CACHAR
SILCHAR.
5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-3.
6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
SILCHAR WATER RESOURCE DIVISION
SILCHAR
DIST. CACHAR
PIN-788001
------------

Linked Case : WP(C)/268/2022

BABUL DAS
S/O. LT. PADMA DAS
R/O. SOLMARA
P.O. JURKOTA
 Page No.# 6/50

P.S. DHEMAJI
DIST. DHEMAJI
ASSAM.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. CUM CHAIRMAN OF STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY.

TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
IRRIGATIN DEPTT.
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE DEPUTY SECY.

TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

FINANCE DEPTT.
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

DHEMAJI
DIST. DHEMAJI
ASSAM.
------------

Linked Case : WP(C)/1792/2022

SHARIFUL ISLAM AKAND

S/O. LT. SAFI UDDIN AHMED
VILL. POKALAGI
P.O. KAMANDANGA
P.S. TAMARHAT
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

 Page No.# 7/50

TO BE REP. BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL (B)
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.

2:THE COMMISSIONER
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-19.
4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (FOR APPOINTMENT ON
COMPASSIONATE GROUND)
REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DHUBRI
P.O. AND DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783301.
------------

Linked Case : WP(C)/4114/2019

PANKAJ PHUKON
S/O- LATE DAMBARU PHUKAN
R/VILL.- SAFRAI MOHAN GAON
P.O.- MON-MOHAN
P.S.- SONARI
DISTRICT- CHARAIDEO
ASSAM
PIN- 785689.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS.

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY CUM CHAIRMAN
STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.

2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

GOVT. OF ASSAM
 Page No.# 8/50

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
PERSONNEL-B
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
4:THE DIRECTOR
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI- 781019
DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM.
5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN OF THE DISTRICT
LEVEL COMMITTEE
SIVASAGAR DISTRICT
ASSAM- 785640.
6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHARAIDEO DISTRICT
ASSAM- 785690.
7:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER

SIVASAGAR DISTRICT
ASSAM.
8:THE DY. INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

CHARAIDEO
SONARI- 785690.
------------

Linked Case : WP(C)/5031/2022

MITHUN ROY
S/O LATE JOGESH CHANDRA ROY
R/O VILL-SOUTH KALACHUP
P.O.-PURBA HARINAGAR
DIST-KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
PIN-788734

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

 Page No.# 9/50

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6

2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-19
4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
KARIMGANJ DISTRICT CIRCLE
KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
PIN-788710
5:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE
APPOINTMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
PIN-788710
------------

Linked Case : WP(C)/4384/2021

NAVANITA GOGOI
D/O LATE PREMADHAR GOGOI
VILLAGE BHAKAT GAON
PS GHILAMARA
DIST NORTH LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
787053

VERSUS

THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE AND 3 ORS.

FOR SELECTION ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR GUWAHATI 06

2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

 Page No.# 10/50

TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL B. DISPUR GUWAHATI 06
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
DISPUR GUWAHATI 06
4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE

REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

NORTH LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
787001
------------

Linked Case : WP(C)/1064/2017

DEEPAL DEY
S/O LT. DULAL CHANDRA DEY
S.P. ROAD
BADARPUR
P.O. BADARPUR
DIST- KARIMGANJ

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS

REP. BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL
PERSONNEL B
DISPUR
GHY-6

2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

DEPTT. OF P.H.E.
DISPUR
GHY-6
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
P.H.E. DEPTT.
HENGERABARI
GUWAHATI
4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
HEADED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER
KARIMGANJ
P.O. and DIST- KARIMGANJ
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
P.H.E. DIVISION
 Page No.# 11/50

KARIMGANJ
P.O. and DIST- KARIMGANJ
------------

Linked Case : WP(C)/7761/2022

PRANJIT SARMAH
SON OF LATE GANGANATH SARMAH

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHOLABARI

P.O.- BHOLABARI
DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR

ASSAM
PIN- 787033

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY CUM CHAIRMAN

STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.

2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL PERSONAL-B

DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT

DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-19.
5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT LEVEL
COMMITTEE
 Page No.# 12/50

LAKHIMPUR
DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM.
6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
LAKHIMPUR
DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM.
7:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
LAKHIMPUR
DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM.
8:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
LAKHIMPUR
DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM.
------------

Linked Case : WP(C)/3245/2019

DIPAK GOGOI
S/O LT. LABU RAM GOGOI
VILL. KHUMTAI
P.O. KHUMTAI
DIST.-GOLAGHAT
ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPTT. DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6

2:CHIEF SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL
PERSONNEL B
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
3:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI
4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC)
HEADED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GOLAGHAT
DIST.-GOLAGHAT
 Page No.# 13/50

ASSAM
5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
------------

Linked Case : WP(C)/6798/2022

MALIN NATH
S/O LATE GANGADHAR NATH
R/O VILL- PHEHURA KHUWA
P.O.-BHULUKADOBA
P.S.-SORBHOG
DIST- BARPETA (ASSAM)
PIN-781317

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM CUM
THE CHAIRMAN
STATE LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6

2:THE COMMISISONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
ASSAM
4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
PERSONNEL B
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
5:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-19
6:THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
 Page No.# 14/50

ASSAM
PANJABARI
JURIPAR
GUWAHATI-37
7:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CUM THE CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND
DIST- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781301
8:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
BARPETA
DIST-BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781301
9:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
BARPETA ZILLA PARISHAD
BARPETA
DIST- BARPETA (ASSAM)
PIN-781301
------------

Linked Case : WP(C)/5883/2021

DEBANANDA BHARALI
S/O- LT. UPEN BHARALI
R/O- VILL- GHILAMARA
DIST.- DHEMAJI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GHY-06

2:CHIEF SECRETARY
STATE OF ASSAM
CUM- CHAIRMAN
STATE LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE
DISPUR
GHY-06
3:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
IRRIGATION DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-6
 Page No.# 15/50

4:COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

IRRIGATION DEPTT.
5:CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION DEPTT.
CHANDMARI
GHY-03
6:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
IRRIGATION DEPTT.
DHEMAJI DIVISION
DHEMAJI
------------

Linked Case : WP(C)/7095/2022

KASHMIRI DEKA
D/O- LATE KHARGESWAR DEKA
R/O- VILL.- KEOTPARA
P.S. MANGALDAI
P.O. JANARAM CHOWKA
DIST. DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN- 784529.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVT. OF ASSAM CUM CHAIRMAN
STATE LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
ASSAM

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
PERSONNEL B
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ASSAM
ULUBARI
 Page No.# 16/50

GUWAHATI-7.
5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND
DIST. BAKSA
MUSHALPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 781372.
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BAKSA (BTAD)
MUSHALPUR
PIN- 781372.
------------

Linked Case : WP(C)/7149/2022

GAUTAM DAS
S/O- LATE SONESWAR DAS

R/O- VILLAGE PACHAMTOLA

P.O- CHAMPAK NAGAR

DIST- KAMRUP (R)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006

2:THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY

TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
PHE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
3:THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL - PERSONNEL B
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
4:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE
FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
 Page No.# 17/50

GHY-6
5:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT NALBARI
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
NALBARI CUM CHAIRMAN DLC NALBARI
------------

Linked Case : WP(C)/1386/2022

KAMAL DIHINGIA
S/O LATE GANGARAM DIHINGIA

VILL- HANDIQUE MILON

P.O. SIMEN CHAPORI
DIST. DHEMAJI
ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

TO BE REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
3:THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM CUM CHAIRMAN

STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT

DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
4:THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
PERSONAL-B
REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
5:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
 Page No.# 18/50

------------

Linked Case : WP(C)/7123/2022

BIKASH TALUKDAR
S/O- LT. DIBAKAR TALUKDAR
VILL- BORMAKHIBAHA
P.O. MAKHIBAHA
DIST.- NALBARI
ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GHY-6

2:THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

PHE DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-6
3:THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL PERSONNEL B
DISPUR
GHY-6
4:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC)
FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
BEING REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
NAMELY
THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GHY-6
5:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC)
FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
NALBARI
REP. BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER
NALBARI
CUM CHAIRMAN DLC NALBARI
------------
 Page No.# 19/50

Advocates for the petitioners

Mr. M. Khan, Advocate; Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, Advocate; Mr. F. U.
Barbhuiya, Advocate; Mr. M. Hussain, Advocate; Mr. D. Boruah,
Advocate; Mr. M. Khan, Advocate; Mr. A. K. Dutta, Advocate; Mr. D.
P. Chaliha, Advocate; Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya, Advocate; Mr. B. K.
Gogoi, Advocate; Mr. F. A. Laskar, Advocate; Mr. A. U. Ahmed,
Advocate; Mr. I. H. Saikia, Advocate; Mr. K. R. Patgiri, Advocate;
Mr. S. K. Talukdar, Advocate and Mr. N. Borah, Advocate.

Advocate for the respondents

Mr. D. Nath, Senior Government Advocate

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Date : 30-01-2023

Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.
D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of all the
respondents.

2. The present batch of writ petitions have been filed by the various
petitioners who are dependents of Government officials who have died in
harness, having less than 3 years balance in their service carriers, thereby
assailing the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, only to a limited extent,
whereby, the dependants of Government officials who have died in harness
 Page No.# 20/50

having less than 3 years of service in balance is being deprived of the benefit of
the said Office Memorandum. In the present batch of the writ petitions, the
candidature of the petitioners have been rejected either by the District Level
Committee or by the State Level Committee for compassionate appointment in
view of the Clause-1 of the said Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, the
details of which are mentioned specifically in the latter part of the present
judgment.

3. It is the case of the petitioners herein that there is no rationale of

depriving the family members of those Government Officers who die in harness,
having less than minimum of 3 years of service, from the purview of being
considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, in terms with the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, taking into account that the object sought to
be achieved is upon the death of an employee who dies in harness, the
dependants are provided solace and succor in difficult times due to the death of
the sole bread earner.

4. The offending Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 is

quoted herein below:

“(1) Only one dependent family member of a Government servant

appointed on regular basis - excluding one working on daily wage or
casual or apprentice or ad-hoc or contract or re-employment basis - who
die in harness or become incapacitated due to accidents suffered while
on duty and is eligible to opt for invalid pension under relevant provision
of Service Rule/Pension Code and/or who is missing is eligible for making
application for compassionate appointment provided in each case the
Government servant has balance of minimum of 3 years of service.”
 Page No.# 21/50

From a reading of the said Clause-1 quoted as hereinabove, it would

reveal that only one dependent family member of a Government servant
appointed on regular basis (excluding one working on daily wage or casual or
apprentice or ad-hoc or contract or re-employment basis) who die in harness or
become incapacitated due to accidents suffered while on duty and is eligible to
opt for invalid pension under relevant provisions of Service Rule/Pension Code, a
Government servant who has gone missing, is eligible to make an application for
compassionate appointment; provided in each case the Government servant has
balance of minimum of 3 years of service.

5. The State respondents have filed a detail affidavit in WP(C) No.3245/2019

and it has also been submitted by Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government
Advocate that the said affidavit is a comprehensive affidavit which will deal with
the issue in the batch of the writ petitions. In the said affidavit, it has been
mentioned that the policy of compassionate appointment as contained in the
Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 is in conformity with the principles of law
as laid down by this Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das Vs. The State of
Assam & Others reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674. It has been mentioned that the

compassionate appointment which is a source of recruitment without taking into

consideration the intense merit tends to offend Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. However, strictly on humanitarian ground and to save the
surviving family of the deceased Government employee from destitution, an
exception is carved out in spite of Article 16 and that is how the State provides
for appointment on compassionate ground. On the rationale, behind not
granting the benefit to those Government servants who die in harness having
less than 3 years balance in service, it has been specifically mentioned that no
rationale was found in the note sheets of the relevant file at the point of time of
 Page No.# 22/50

preparing the Draft O.M. for Cabinet approval. However, it has been mentioned
that it was necessary to keep a cut off date on the eligibility for consideration of
appointment on compassionate ground. Further it has been mentioned that the
cut off balance of 3 years in service has been kept as a condition of eligibility
because appointment on compassionate ground is not in lieu of but in addition
to family pension that the survivors would be given by relaxing and overriding
Recruitment Rules. Further it was mentioned that in case of premature
retirement on medical grounds, the 3 years balance in service acts as a
deterrent from misusing the provision of appointment on compassionate
ground and is also a condition in the DoPT (Government of India) O.M. of
16.01.2013 which was also consulted while framing the Office Memorandum
dated 01.06.2015. It was also mentioned that the Office Memorandum providing
cut off of the balance of 3 years in service had been placed for consideration
and approval of the Cabinet and on receipt of approval of the Cabinet, the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 was brought into effect. Further to that, the
said policy of Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 has now been replaced by
new norms as contained in the Finance Department O.M./Notification File
No.FEG 28/2017/26 dated 14.09.2017. To the said affidavit, the Government
have enclosed the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, the judgment of this
Court dated 03.08.2006 in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra) as well as the
Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2013 of the Government of India, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.

6. From a perusal of the said affidavit filed by the respondent State, one
thing is clear and specific that there is no mention whatsoever as to what was
the rationale for depriving the dependant(s) of those Government officers who
die in harness having less than 3 years of balance in service. This aspect would
 Page No.# 23/50

be clear from paragraph No.5 of the affidavit of the State Respondents and the
relevant portion of the paragraph No.5 for the sake of convenience is quoted
hereinbelow:

“Now coming to the rationale of the balance of 3 years in service.

Though the rationale has not been found noted in the notesheets of the
relevant file at the point of time of preparing the Draft O.M. for Cabinet
approval, it appears that it was necessary to keep a cut off date on eligibility for
consideration of appointment on compassionate ground.

The cut off balance of 3 years in service has been kept as a condition of
eligibility. Because appointment on compassionate ground is not in lieu of but in
addition to family pension that the survivors would be given by relaxing and
overriding recruitment rules.

In case of premature retirement on medical ground this 3 years balance

in service acts as a deterrent from misusing the provision of appointment on
compassionate ground and is also a condition in the DoPT (Govt. of India) O.M.
of 16.01.2013 which was also consulted while framing our O.M.
No.ABP.50/2006/Pt/182 dated 01.06.2015. This O.M. providing cut off balance
of 3 years in service had been placed for consideration and approval of the
Hon’ble Cabinet and on receipt of approval of the Hon’ble Cabinet this became
the policy for appointment on compassionate ground. The policy has now been
replaced by new norms as contained in Finance Department O.M./Notification
file No.FEG 28/2017/26 dated 14.09.2017 (Annexure-IV).”

7. It is also relevant to take note of that in the judgment rendered by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra), this
Court had laid down certain principles on the basis of which the claims relating
to compassionate appointments are to be considered. In paragraph No.7 of the
said judgment, as many as ten principles have been detailed. The said ten
 Page No.# 24/50

principles have been incorporated as Principle No.1 to Principle No.10 in the

Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. There is however, no reference or
mention that Government officers dying in harness having less than 3 years
balance in service, their dependants would be disentitled to claim appointment
on compassionate grounds.

8. This Court have also perused the Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2013 of
the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
which as per the affidavit of the State Government was followed in spirit.
Clause-2 of the said Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2013 being relevant is
quoted hereinbelow:

“2. TO WHOM APPLICABLE

To a dependent family member-

(A) of a Government servant who -

(a) dies while in service (including death by suicide); or

(b) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 2 of the CCS (Medical

Examination) Rules 1957 or the corresponding provision in the
Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55
years (57 years for erstwhile Group “D” Government servants); or

(c) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension)

Rules, 1972 or the corresponding provision in the Central Civil
Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years
for erstwhile Group “D” Government servants); or

(B) of a member of the Armed Forces who –

(a) dies during service; or

 Page No.# 25/50

(b) is killed in action; or

(c) is medically boarded out and is unfit for civil employment.”

The above quoted Clause-2 of the Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2013

would show that Clause-2(A), (b) and (c) have limited the benefit of
compassionate appointment to dependants of Government officials who have
retired on medical grounds before attaining a particular age, but in respect to
Government official who had died in harness (including death by suicide), the
dependant(s) of such Government officials are eligible to claim consideration for
compassionate appointment.

9. In the backdrop of the above pleadings, let this Court therefore take into
consideration the respective submissions made by the learned counsels for the
parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that, taking into
account that there is no rationale behind the classification so made by which the
family members of the Government officers, having less than 3 years balance in
service have been deprived of consideration for compassionate appointment,
Clause-1 insofar as it deprives the family members of Government officers who
have died in harness having less than 3 years balance in service is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution as it is arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational. The
learned counsels for the petitioners have referred to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. N.S Rathnam and
Sons reported in (2015) 10 SCC 681 and submitted that though Article 14

permits reasonable classification but while the State makes that permissible
classification, two conditions must be fulfilled. Firstly, the classification must be
founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that
are grouped together from others left out of the group and secondly, that the
 Page No.# 26/50

differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by

the statute in question. It was further submitted on the basis of the said
judgment that if the Government fails to support its action of classification, on
the touchstone of the above principles to the effect whether the classification is
reasonable having an intelligible differentia and a rational basis germane to the
purpose, the classification would have to be held as arbitrary and discriminatory.
The learned counsel therefore relied on paragraph Nos. 12, 13 and 14 of the
said judgment.

10. Further to that, the learned counsel have also relied upon the Constitution
Bench Judgment in the case of D.S. Nakara and Others Vs. Union of India
reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 to canvas the point that it is the responsibility of
the State or for that matter, it is the burden of the State to affirmatively
establish that the rational principle on which the classification is founded. In that
regard, paragraph 16 of the said judgment have been referred to.

11. On the other hand, Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate
for the State has submitted that the right to be considered for compassionate
appointment is not a vested right and as such the question of violation of Article
14 of the Constitution does not arise. He submitted that the policy decision of
the Government to have compassionate appointment in terms with the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 cannot be put at fault on the touchstone of
Article 14 of the Constitution as the petitioners herein cannot claim right to be
appointed on compassionate appointment as of any right. He further submitted
that it is the requirement that there has to be cut off year and it is because of
that requirement, the Government in its discretion have taken the 3 years from
the date of retirement as a cut off year in question for the purpose of granting
 Page No.# 27/50

the benefit for compassionate appointment. He further submitted that the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 has been formulated taking into account the
spirit of the Government of India, Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2013. He
further submitted that although the Government of India, Office Memorandum
dated 16.01.2013 did not limit the benefits to those persons who die in harness
but in order to maintain parity amongst the groups mentioned in Clause-1 of the
Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, the Government of Assam have applied
the same yardstick for those persons who die in harness or have been
incapacitated due to accident suffered on duty as well as those persons who
have been missing.

12. This Court have perused the respective pleadings, the materials on record
as well as the respective contentions so made by the learned counsels. In the
opinion of this Court, two issues arises for consideration broadly.

(i) Whether Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 insofar as

it deprives the dependants of the Government officials who die in harness
having less than 3 years of service is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution?

(ii) If so, what reliefs, petitioners are entitled to?

13. Let this Court first take into consideration the first broad issue so framed.
To appreciate the said issue, it is relevant to take note of the concept of
compassionate appointment. As it is well settled by various judgments of the
Apex Court, compassionate appointment is not a condition of service which is to
be made automatic upon the death of an employee in harness without any kind
of scrutiny whatsoever. Appointment on compassionate grounds is also not
 Page No.# 28/50

automatic but subject to strict scrutiny of various parameters including the

financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the
deceased employee and the avocation of other members of the family. This
aspect of the matter can very well be seen from the judgment of the Co-
ordinate Bench in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra) whereby in paragraph
No.7, ten principles have been laid down which have been also incorporated in
the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 as Principle No.1 to Principle No.10.
Therefore, no one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on
compassionate grounds. But the question involved in the instant proceedings is,
once the Government of Assam in its wisdom and discretion have formulated a
policy to give appointment on compassionate grounds, can this Court in exercise
of its powers of judicial review look into, if the policy of the Government violates
the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution? The law in that regard is no
longer res integra, inasmuch as, if a policy decision is so taken by the
Government, the same has to be in conformity with Article 14 as well as the
Wednesbury Principles. This answers the first preliminary objection raised by Mr.
D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate to the effect that the
petitioners having no vested right for appointment on compassionate ground
cannot challenge the Office Memorandum even if the policy is not in conformity
of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is the opinion of this Court that if Clause-1 of
the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 is in violation to Article 14 of the
Constitution or in other words is arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable and do not
confirm the principles of Wednesbury’s reasonableness, this Court in exercise of
the powers of judicial review can very well interfere with the same.

14. Now, the next question therefore arises is as to whether Clause-1 of the
Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 is in violation to Article 14 of the
 Page No.# 29/50

Constitution. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners have

drawn the attention of this Court to various judgments of the Supreme Court
which have already been referred to hereinabove. In the case of N.S. Rathnam
and Sons (supra), the Supreme Court explained the concept of reasonable

classification. Paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 of the said judgment being relevant are
quoted hereinbelow:
13. It is, thus, beyond any pale of doubt that the justiciability of particular
notification can be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Article 14, which is treated as basic feature of the Constitution, ensures equality
before the law or equal protection of laws. Equal protection means the right to
equal treatment in similar circumstances, both in the privileges conferred and in
the liabilities imposed. Therefore, if the two persons or two sets of persons are
similarly situated/placed, they have to be treated equally. At the same time, the
principle of equality does not mean that every law must have universal
application for all persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstances
in the same position. It would mean that the State has the power to classify
persons for legitimate purposes. The legislature is competent to exercise its
discretion and make classification. Thus, every classification is in some degree
likely to produce some inequality but mere production of inequality is not
enough. Article 14 would be treated as violated only when equal protection is
denied even when the two persons belong to same class/category. Therefore,
the person challenging the act of the State as violative of Article 14 has to show
that there is no reasonable basis for the differentiation between the two classes
created by the State. Article 14 prohibits class legislation and not reasonable
classification.

14. What follows from the above is that in order to pass the test of permissible
classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification
must be founded on an intelligible differential which distinguishes persons or
 Page No.# 30/50

things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) that,
that differential must have a rational relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the statute in question. If the Government fails to support its action
of classification on the touchstone of the principle whether the classification is
reasonable having an intelligible differentia and a rational basis germane to the
purpose, the classification has to be held as arbitrary and discriminatory. In
Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, this aspect is highlighted by the Court in the
following manner: (SCC p. 548, para 10)
“10. In the counter and the note of submission filed on behalf of the
appellants it is averred, inter alia, that the Land Acquisition Collector on
considering the objections filed by the appellants had recommended to
the State Government for exclusion of the properties of Appellants 1 and
3 to 6 and the State Government had not accepted such
recommendations only on the ground that the constructions made by the
appellants were of ‘B’ or ‘C’ class and could not be easily amalgamated
into the developed colony which was proposed to be built. There is no
averment in the pleadings of the respondents stating the basis of
classification of structures as ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ class, nor is it stated how the
amalgamation of all ‘A’ class structures was feasible and possible while
those of ‘B’ and ‘C’ class structures was not possible. It is not the case of
the State Government and also not argued before us that there is no
policy decision of the Government for excluding the lands having
structures thereon from acquisition under the Act. Indeed, as noted
earlier, in these cases the State Government has accepted the request of
some landowners for exclusion of their properties on this very ground. It
remains to be seen whether the purported classification of existing
structures into ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ class is a reasonable classification having an
intelligible differentia and a rational basis germane to the purpose. If the
State Government fails to support its action on the touchstone of the
above principle, then this decision has to be held as arbitrary and
 Page No.# 31/50

discriminatory. It is relevant to note here that the acquisition of the lands

is for the purpose of planned development of the area which includes
both residential and commercial purposes. That being the purpose of
acquisition, it is difficult to accept the case of the State Government that
certain types of structures which according to its own classification are of
‘A’ class can be allowed to remain while other structures situated in close
vicinity and being used for same purposes (residential or commercial)
should be demolished. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated here
that no material was placed before us to show the basis of classification
of the existing structures on the lands proposed to be acquired. This
assumes importance in view of the specific contention raised on behalf of
the appellants that they have pucca structures with RC roofing, mosaic
flooring, etc. No attempt was also made from the side of the State
Government to place any architectural plan of different types of
structures proposed to be constructed on the land notified for acquisition
in support of its contention that the structures which exist on the lands
of the appellants could not be amalgamated into the plan.”

15. From the above quoted paragraphs of the said judgment, it is clear that
Article 14 being a basic feature of the Constitution, the justifiability of any
notification can be tested on the touchstone of the Article 14 of the Constitution.
It has been further observed that the State has the power to classify persons for
legitimate purposes and every classification in some degree may produce some
inequality but mere production of inequality is not enough. Article 14 would be
treated as violated only when equal protection is denied even when two persons
belong to the same class/category. The Supreme Court further explained in the
said judgment that in order to pass the test of permissible classification, two
conditions must be fulfilled namely, (i) that the classification must be founded
on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are
 Page No.# 32/50

grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that the differentia
must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in
question. If the Government fails to support its action of classification on the
touchstone of the principle whether the classification is reasonable having an
intelligible differentia and a rational basis germane to the purpose, the
classification has to be held as arbitrary and discriminatory. This Court also finds
it relevant to take note of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of D.S.
Nakara (supra) wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph No.16 had categorically

observed that the burden lies on the State to satisfy the Court that twin test
have been satisfied. Paragraph 16 of the said judgment being relevant is quoted
hereinbelow:

“16. As a corollary to this well established proposition, the next question is, on
whom the burden lies to affirmatively establish the rational principle on which
the classification is founded correlated to the object sought to be achieved? The
thrust of Article 14 is that the citizen is entitled to equality before law and equal
protection of laws. In the very nature of things the society being composed of
unequals a welfare State will have to strive by both executive and legislative
action to help the less fortunate in the society to ameliorate their condition so
that the social and economic inequality in the society may be bridged. This
would necessitate a legislation applicable to a group of citizens otherwise
unequal and amelioration of whose lot is the object of State affirmative action.
In the absence of doctrine of classification such legislation is likely to flounder
on the bed rock of equality enshrined in Article 14. The Court realistically
appraising the social stratification and economic inequality and keeping in view
the guidelines on which the State action must move as constitutionally laid
down in Part IV of the Constitution, evolved the doctrine of classification. The
doctrine was evolved to sustain a legislation or State action designed to help
weaker sections of the society or some such segments of the society in need of
 Page No.# 33/50

succour. Legislative and executive action may accordingly be sustained if it

satisfies the twin tests of reasonable classification and the rational principle
correlated to the object sought to be achieved. The State, therefore, would
have to affirmatively satisfy the Court that the twin tests have been satisfied. It
can only be satisfied if the State establishes not only the rational principle on
which classification is founded but correlate it to the objects sought to be
achieved. This approach is noticed in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International
Airport Authority of India when at SCR p. 1034 (SCC p. 506), the Court
observed that a discriminatory action of the Government is liable to be struck
down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not
arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not
irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.”

16. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take into consideration what is
the object sought to be achieved by way of compassionate appointment. The
object behind the policy for compassionate appointment is only to provide
solace and succor to the family whose sole bread earner dies in harness thereby
putting the family in difficulty to sustain. The Supreme Court in the Case of
Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in (1994) 4 SCC

138 had observed that the appointment on compassionate grounds is an

exception in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and

leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. It is only
under such circumstances, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into
consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the
family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the
Rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased
who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting
compassionate appointment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden
 Page No.# 34/50

crisis. It was further observed that the object is not to give a member of such a
family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. Paragraph No.2 of
the said judgment being relevant is quoted hereinbelow:

“2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving
appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there
has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in
the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of
applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other
consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities
are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down
by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed
strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of
justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of
the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in
penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure
humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some
source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends
meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of
the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The
whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the
family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such
family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further,
mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source
of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine
the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is
satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to
meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family.
The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual
categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the
 Page No.# 35/50

object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get
over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by
making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not
discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the
deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to
be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or
required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be
remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the
deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more
destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the
deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the
legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family
engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.”

17. This aspect of the matter can also be seen from the affidavit filed by the
State respondents wherein it has been mentioned that strictly on humanitarian
ground and to save the surviving family of the deceased Government employee
from destitution, an exception is curved out in spite of Article 16 and that is how
the State Government provides for appointment on compassionate grounds.
Therefore, the object sought to be achieved is for the purpose of tiding out the
family over the sudden crisis on account of the death of the sole breadwinner.
Now, coming to the affidavit as well as the contentions made by the learned
Senior Government Advocate, there is no material for which the classification
has been made thereby depriving the family members of those Government
officials who die in harness having less than 3 years in service. Taking into
account that it is for the State to satisfy the twin conditions which have been
mentioned hereinabove and the Respondent State herein having failed to show
any intelligible differentia, on the basis of which the classification has been
 Page No.# 36/50

made thereby grouping those Government officials who die in harness having
less than 3 years balance in service from others and further that the said
differentia have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, this
Court is of the opinion that the said classification so made thereby depriving the
benefits of the Office Memorandum to the family members of the Government
officials who die in harness having less than 3 years to be illegal, arbitrary and
discriminatory; and accordingly Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum to the
effect that the dependants of the Government officials who die in harness
having less than 3 years of service is being deprived, is accordingly struck down
being violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and accordingly unconstitutional.

18. The issue can also be looked into from another angle inasmuch as it is the
stand of the Government in their affidavit that the Respondent State have
adopted this policy having minimum 3 years balance in service on the basis of
the Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2013. The quoted Clause-2 of the Office
Memorandum dated 16.01.2013 also does not deprive the dependants of the
Government officials who die in harness. It is only those persons who have
retired on account of medical reasons, the dependants of such Government
officials are being deprived, if they don’t have a particular number of years in
balance. At this stage, it may be relevant to take note of the submission of Mr.
D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate to the effect that the
Government of Assam have universally applied the same yardstick to all the
categories of the Government officials as mentioned in Clause-1 of the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. This contention at the first blush looks
attractive and plausible but a comparison of the groups of the Government
officials mentioned in Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015
would show that the groups are distinct and different. A Government official
 Page No.# 37/50

dying in harness cannot be equated with a Government official who have due to
medical reasons opted for invalid pension. Therefore the grouping of the said
groups together into a class would be an unreasonable classification and would
violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court at this stage
also finds it relevant to take note of the submission of Mr. D. Nath, the learned
Senior Government Advocate who had submitted that certain Government
official when nearing their date of superannuation opt for invalid pension so that
their dependants can claim appointment on compassionate grounds and in order
to avoid the said mischief, the three years period have been mentioned. It is
relevant to take note that the said mischief which the State Government seeks
to remedy by Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 cannot be
applied to the Government officials who dies in harness in as much as the
mischief which the State Government seeks to remedy under no circumstances
can arise in the case of a Government official dying in harness. It is therefore
for that reason, the Government of India in its Office Memorandum dated
16.01.2013 did not apply the same yardstick for Government official dying in
harness with others.

19. In view of the above, therefore this Court answers the Issue No.1 to the
effect that the Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 whereby
the dependent family members of Government official who die in harness
having less than minimum 3 of years of service being not eligible as per the said
Office Memorandum is unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14 and
accordingly struck down to the said extent.

20. Now the next Issue which arises as to what reliefs the petitioners are
entitled to.
 Page No.# 38/50

(A) WP(C) No.1646/2021

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Minutes of the
State Level Committee held on 04.01.2021 insofar as the rejection of the
petitioner’s application appearing at Serial No.39 on the ground that the
petitioner’s father had less than 3 years of service. The said rejection is
interfered with and thereby directing the State Level Committee for
compassionate appointment to reconsider the case of the petitioner without
insisting upon the compliance to Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated
01.06.2015. It is however made clear that the State Level Committee while
reconsidering the case of the petitioner shall duly take note of the object behind
the scheme for compassionate appointment, the provisions of the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, including the 10 principles as set out in the
said Office Memorandum. The said exercise be carried out in the next State
Level Committee meeting which follows after a certified copy of this judgment is
served upon the concerned Departmental Head as well as the Chairman of the
State Level Committee. The petitioner shall do the needful within 30 days from
today.

(B) WP(C) No.1064/2017

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Minutes of the
District Level Committee held on 20.07.2016 insofar as the rejection of the
petitioner’s application appearing at Serial No.(ii) on the ground that the
petitioner’s father had less than 3 years of service. The said rejection is
interfered with and thereby directing the District Level Committee for
compassionate appointment to reconsider the case of the petitioners without
insisting upon the compliance to Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated
 Page No.# 39/50

01.06.2015. It is however made clear that the District Level Committee while
reconsidering the case of the petitioner shall duly take note of the object behind
the scheme for compassionate appointment, the provisions of the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, including the 10 principles as set out in the
said Office Memorandum. The said exercise be carried out in the next District
Level Committee meeting which follows after a certified copy of this judgment is
served upon the concerned Departmental Head as well as the Chairman of the
District Level Committee. The petitioner shall do the needful within 30 days from
today.

(C) WP(C) No.1562/2018

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Minutes of the
District Level Committee held on 24.05.2017 insofar as the rejection of the
petitioner’s application appearing at Serial No.1 on the ground that the
petitioner’s father had less than 3 years of service. The said rejection is
interfered with and thereby directing the District Level Committee for
compassionate appointment to reconsider the case of the petitioner without
insisting upon the compliance to Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated
01.06.2015. It is however made clear that the District Level Committee while
reconsidering the case of the petitioner shall duly take note of the object behind
the scheme for compassionate appointment, the provisions of the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, including the 10 principles as set out in the
said Office Memorandum. The said exercise be carried out in the next District
Level Committee meeting which follows after a certified copy of this judgment is
served upon the concerned Departmental Head as well as the Chairman of the
District Level Committee. The petitioner shall do the needful within 30 days from
 Page No.# 40/50

today.

(D) WP(C) No.1446/2019

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Minutes of the
State Level Committee held on 28.06.2018 insofar as the rejection of the
petitioner’s application appearing at Serial No.19(b) on the ground that the
petitioner’s father had less than 3 years of service. The said rejection is
interfered with and thereby directing the State Level Committee for
compassionate appointment to reconsider the case of the petitioner without
insisting upon the compliance to Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated
01.06.2015. It is however made clear that the State Level Committee while
reconsidering the case of the petitioner shall duly take note of the object behind
the scheme for compassionate appointment, the provisions of the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, including the 10 principles as set out in the
said Office Memorandum. The said exercise be carried out in the next State
Level Committee meeting which follows after a certified copy of this judgment is
served upon the concerned Departmental Head as well as the Chairman of the
State Level Committee. The petitioner shall do the needful within 30 days from
today.

(E) WP(C) No.3245/2019

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the action on the
part of the Respondent Authorities in not considering his case on the ground
that the petitioner’s father had less than 3 years of service. The said inaction is
interfered with and thereby directing the District Level Committee for
compassionate appointment to consider the case of the petitioner without
insisting upon the compliance to Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated
 Page No.# 41/50

01.06.2015. It is however made clear that the District Level Committee while
considering the case of the petitioner shall duly take note of the object behind
the scheme for compassionate appointment, the provisions of the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, including the 10 principles as set out in the
said Office Memorandum. The said exercise be carried out in the next District
Level Committee meeting which follows after a certified copy of this judgment is
served upon the concerned Departmental Head as well as the Chairman of the
District Level Committee. The petitioner shall do the needful within 30 days from
today.

(F) WP(C) No.4114/2019

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Minutes of the
District Level Committee held on 30.03.2019 insofar as the rejection of the
petitioner’s application on the ground that the petitioner’s father had less than 3
years of service. The said rejection is interfered with and thereby directing the
District Level Committee for compassionate appointment to reconsider the case
of the petitioner without insisting upon the compliance to Clause-1 of the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. It is however made clear that the District Level
Committee while reconsidering the case of the petitioner shall duly take note of
the object behind the scheme for compassionate appointment, the provisions of
the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, including the 10 principles as set out
in the said Office Memorandum. The said exercise be carried out in the next
District Level Committee meeting which follows after a certified copy of this
judgment is served upon the concerned Departmental Head as well as the
Chairman of the District Level Committee. The petitioner shall do the needful
 Page No.# 42/50

within 30 days from today.

(G) WP(C) No.7947/2019

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Minutes of the
District Level Committee held on 28.02.2019 insofar as the rejection of the
petitioner’s application appearing at Serial No.3 on the ground that the
petitioner’s father had less than 3 years of service. The said rejection is
interfered with and thereby directing the District Level Committee for
compassionate appointment to reconsider the case of the petitioner without
insisting upon the compliance to Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated
01.06.2015. It is however made clear that the District Level Committee while
reconsidering the case of the petitioner shall duly take note of the object behind
the scheme for compassionate appointment, the provisions of the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, including the 10 principles as set out in the
said Office Memorandum. The said exercise be carried out in the next District
Level Committee meeting which follows after a certified copy of this judgment is
served upon the concerned Departmental Head as well as the Chairman of the
District Level Committee. The petitioner shall do the needful within 30 days from
today.

(H) WP(C) No.4384/2021

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Minutes of the
State Level Committee held on 04.01.2021 insofar as the rejection of the
petitioner’s application appearing at Serial No.27 on the ground that the
petitioner’s father had less than 3 years of service. The said rejection is
interfered with and thereby directing the State Level Committee for
compassionate appointment to reconsider the case of the petitioner without
 Page No.# 43/50

insisting upon the compliance to Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated

01.06.2015. It is however made clear that the State Level Committee while
reconsidering the case of the petitioner shall duly take note of the object behind
the scheme for compassionate appointment, the provisions of the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, including the 10 principles as set out in the
said Office Memorandum. The said exercise be carried out in the next State
Level Committee meeting which follows after a certified copy of this judgment is
served upon the concerned Departmental Head as well as the Chairman of the
State Level Committee. The petitioner shall do the needful within 30 days from
today.

(I) WP(C) No.5883/2021

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Minutes of the
State Level Committee held on 15.09.2021 insofar as the rejection of the
petitioner’s application appearing at Serial No.5 on the ground that the
petitioner’s father had less than 3 years of service. The said rejection is
interfered with and thereby directing the State Level Committee for
compassionate appointment to reconsider the case of the petitioner without
insisting upon the compliance to Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated
01.06.2015. It is however made clear that the State Level Committee while
reconsidering the case of the petitioner shall duly take note of the object behind
the scheme for compassionate appointment, the provisions of the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, including the 10 principles as set out in the
said Office Memorandum. The said exercise be carried out in the next State
Level Committee meeting which follows after a certified copy of this judgment is
served upon the concerned Departmental Head as well as the Chairman of the
 Page No.# 44/50

State Level Committee. The petitioner shall do the needful within 30 days from
today.

(J) WP(C) No.6114/2021

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Minutes of the
District Level Committee held on 27.10.2017 insofar as the rejection of the
petitioner’s application appearing at Serial No.1 on the ground that the
petitioner’s father had less than 3 years of service. The said rejection is
interfered with and thereby directing the District Level Committee for
compassionate appointment to reconsider the case of the petitioner without
insisting upon the compliance to Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated
01.06.2015. It is however made clear that the District Level Committee while
reconsidering the case of the petitioner shall duly take note of the object behind
the scheme for compassionate appointment, the provisions of the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, including the 10 principles as set out in the
said Office Memorandum. The said exercise be carried out in the next District
Level Committee meeting which follows after a certified copy of this judgment is
served upon the concerned Departmental Head as well as the Chairman of the
District Level Committee. The petitioner shall do the needful within 30 days from
today.

(K) WP(C) No.268/2022

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Minutes of the State
Level Committee held on 15.09.2021 insofar as the rejection of the petitioner’s
application appearing at Serial No.2 on the ground that the petitioner’s father
had less than 3 years of service. The said rejection is interfered with and
thereby directing the State Level Committee for compassionate appointment to
 Page No.# 45/50

reconsider the case of the petitioner without insisting upon the compliance to
Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. It is however made clear
that the State Level Committee while reconsidering the case of the petitioner
shall duly take note of the object behind the scheme for compassionate
appointment, the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015,
including the 10 principles as set out in the said Office Memorandum. The said
exercise be carried out in the next State Level Committee meeting which follows
after a certified copy of this judgment is served upon the concerned
Departmental Head as well as the Chairman of the State Level Committee. The
petitioner shall do the needful within 30 days from today.

(L) WP(C) No.1386/2022

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Minutes of the State
Level Committee held on 15.09.2021 insofar as the rejection of the petitioner’s
application appearing at Serial No.3 on the ground that the petitioner’s father
had less than 3 years of service. The said rejection is interfered with and
thereby directing the State Level Committee for compassionate appointment to
reconsider the case of the petitioner without insisting upon the compliance to
Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. It is however made clear
that the State Level Committee while reconsidering the case of the petitioner
shall duly take note of the object behind the scheme for compassionate
appointment, the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015,
including the 10 principles as set out in the said Office Memorandum. The said
exercise be carried out in the next State Level Committee meeting which follows
after a certified copy of this judgment is served upon the concerned
Departmental Head as well as the Chairman of the State Level Committee. The
petitioner shall do the needful within 30 days from today.
 Page No.# 46/50

(M) WP(C) No.1792/2022

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Minutes of the
District Level Committee held on 26.05.2016 insofar as the rejection of the
petitioner’s application on the ground that the petitioner’s father had less than 3
years of service. The said rejection is interfered with and thereby directing the
District Level Committee for compassionate appointment to reconsider the case
of the petitioner without insisting upon the compliance to Clause-1 of the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. It is however made clear that the District Level
Committee while reconsidering the case of the petitioner shall duly take note of
the object behind the scheme for compassionate appointment, the provisions of
the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, including the 10 principles as set out
in the said Office Memorandum. The said exercise be carried out in the next
District Level Committee meeting which follows after a certified copy of this
judgment is served upon the concerned Departmental Head as well as the
Chairman of the District Level Committee. The petitioner shall do the needful
within 30 days from today.

(N) WP(C) No.5031/2022

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Minutes of the State
Level Committee held on 01.03.2022 insofar as the rejection of the petitioner’s
application appearing at Serial No.1 on the ground that the petitioner’s father
had less than 3 years of service. The said rejection is interfered with and
thereby directing the State Level Committee for compassionate appointment to
reconsider the case of the petitioner without insisting upon the compliance to
Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. It is however made clear
that the State Level Committee while reconsidering the case of the petitioner
 Page No.# 47/50

shall duly take note of the object behind the scheme for compassionate
appointment, the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015,
including the 10 principles as set out in the said Office Memorandum. The said
exercise be carried out in the next State Level Committee meeting which follows
after a certified copy of this judgment is served upon the concerned
Departmental Head as well as the Chairman of the State Level Committee. The
petitioner shall do the needful within 30 days from today.

(O) WP(C) No.6798/2022

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Minutes of the
State Level Committee held on 02.08.2022 insofar as the rejection of the
petitioner’s application appearing at Serial No.1 on the ground that the
petitioner’s father had less than 3 years of service. The said rejection is
interfered with and thereby directing the State Level Committee for
compassionate appointment to reconsider the case of the petitioner without
insisting upon the compliance to Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated
01.06.2015. It is however made clear that the State Level Committee while
reconsidering the case of the petitioner shall duly take note of the object behind
the scheme for compassionate appointment, the provisions of the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, including the 10 principles as set out in the
said Office Memorandum. The said exercise be carried out in the next State
Level Committee meeting which follows after a certified copy of this judgment is
served upon the concerned Departmental Head as well as the Chairman of the
State Level Committee. The petitioner shall do the needful within 30 days from
today.
 Page No.# 48/50

(P) WP(C) No.7095/2022

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Minutes of the
State Level Committee held on 10.02.2022 insofar as the rejection of the
petitioner’s application appearing at Serial No.2 on the ground that the
petitioner’s father had less than 3 years of service. The said rejection is
interfered with and thereby directing the State Level Committee for
compassionate appointment to reconsider the case of the petitioner without
insisting upon the compliance to Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated
01.06.2015. It is however made clear that the State Level Committee while
reconsidering the case of the petitioner shall duly take note of the object behind
the scheme for compassionate appointment, the provisions of the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, including the 10 principles as set out in the
said Office Memorandum. The said exercise be carried out in the next State
Level Committee meeting which follows after a certified copy of this judgment is
served upon the concerned Departmental Head as well as the Chairman of the
State Level Committee. The petitioner shall do the needful within 30 days from
today.

(Q) WP(C) No.7123/2022

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Minutes of the
State Level Committee held on 28.03.2022 insofar as the rejection of the
petitioner’s application on the ground that the petitioner’s father had less than 3
years of service. The said rejection is interfered with and thereby directing the
State Level Committee for compassionate appointment to reconsider the case of
the petitioner without insisting upon the compliance to Clause-1 of the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. It is however made clear that the State Level
 Page No.# 49/50

Committee while reconsidering the case of the petitioner shall duly take note of
the object behind the scheme for compassionate appointment, the provisions of
the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, including the 10 principles as set out
in the said Office Memorandum. The said exercise be carried out in the next
State Level Committee meeting which follows after a certified copy of this
judgment is served upon the concerned Departmental Head as well as the
Chairman of the State Level Committee. The petitioner shall do the needful
within 30 days from today.

(R) WP(C) No.7149/2022

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Minutes of the
State Level Committee held on 28.03.2022 insofar as the rejection of the
petitioner’s application on the ground that the petitioner’s father had less than 3
years of service. The said rejection is interfered with and thereby directing the
State Level Committee for compassionate appointment to reconsider the case of
the petitioner without insisting upon the compliance to Clause-1 of the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. It is however made clear that the State Level
Committee while reconsidering the case of the petitioner shall duly take note of
the object behind the scheme for compassionate appointment, the provisions of
the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, including the 10 principles as set out
in the said Office Memorandum. The said exercise be carried out in the next
State Level Committee meeting which follows after a certified copy of this
judgment is served upon the concerned Departmental Head as well as the
Chairman of the State Level Committee. The petitioner shall do the needful
within 30 days from today.
 Page No.# 50/50

(S) WP(C) No.7761/2022

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Minutes of the
State Level Committee held on 26.08.2022 insofar as the rejection of the
petitioner’s application appearing at Serial No.6 on the ground that the
petitioner’s father had less than 3 years of service. The said rejection is
interfered with and thereby directing the State Level Committee for
compassionate appointment to reconsider the case of the petitioner without
insisting upon the compliance to Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated
01.06.2015. It is however made clear that the State Level Committee while
reconsidering the case of the petitioner shall duly take note of the object behind
the scheme for compassionate appointment, the provisions of the Office
Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, including the 10 principles as set out in the
said Office Memorandum. The said exercise be carried out in the next State
Level Committee meeting which follows after a certified copy of this judgment is
served upon the concerned Departmental Head as well as the Chairman of the
State Level Committee. The petitioner shall do the needful within 30 days from
today.

21. With above observations and directions, all the writ petitions stands
disposed of. Before concluding, this Court makes it clear that by the instant
judgment, this Court have only dealt with the issue as to whether Clause-1 of
the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 in so far as it deprives the
dependant(s) of the Government official having less than 3 years service is
constitutional.

JUDGE
Comparing Assistant

Order downloaded on 06-06-2024 11:23:24 PM