GUWAHATI, India, Aug. 18 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on July 17:

1. Heard Mr. S. Upadhay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. H.K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the non-consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate basis in terms with the Notification dated 03.01.2017 issued by the Gauhati High Court on the Administrative side.

3. The case of the petitioner herein is that his father who was working as a Peon in the Establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar expired while in service on 16.04.1976. At that time, the petitioner's age was 1 year 11 months 15 days. It is the case of the petitioner that the mother of the petitioner on various occasions met the Appointing Authority, but the said requests were not considered. It is under such circumstances, on 17.04.2017 the petitioner submitted a representation to the District and Sessions Judge, Silchar, Cachar which was not considered and it is under such circumstances, the present petition has been filed.

4. It is relevant to take note of that when the petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 2018, his age was 42 years. After the death of the father of the petitioner, when the petitioner was just a 1 year old child, the petitioner survived and presently as stated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner continues to aspire for a job in the Establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar.

5. This Court made a specific query upon the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as to how, the petitioner is managing his livelihood inasmuch as, as on date, the petitioner is almost 50 years.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner manages his livelihood by way of tuition.

7. The record reveals that in spite of notices being issued, the Gauhati High Court as well as the District and Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar who are the respondents to the present proceedings have not cared to file any affidavit-in-opposition.

8. The question therefore arises, as to whether, this Court presently would be in a position to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus for consideration of the petitioner's case for the purpose of appointment on compassionate basis.

9. For that purpose, this Court finds it relevant to take note of a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Others reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 219 wherein the Supreme Court culled out the principles for making compassionate appointment.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=rC8SUFuyEFsvB5V61cXUrJlVF5%2F4wyiyizG9RNmH6D39J4Vf%2FQpNWNxaRMwEMpH2&caseno=WP(C)/5100/2018&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010163732018&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.