WP(C)/3167/2025 of NITU MECH Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS on 17 February 2026

ORDER

Date : 18.02.2026 Heard Mr. B. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Finance Department and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking redress against the arbitrary stoppage of his salary, despite his appointment on compassionate ground, his continuance discharged of duties pursuant thereto, and his continuance in service till date.

3. The petitioner was considered for appointment under the scheme for compassionate appointment, a measure intended to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee in financial distress. His case was placed before the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 27.02.2017. The SLC after due consideration, recommended the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is an admitted position that the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue &

Disaster Management Department, as well as Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department including the Chief Secretary as the Chairperson of the said committee, were the members of the said SLC.

4. Acting upon the recommendation of the SLC, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground to the post of Process Server (Jarikarak) (Grade IV) by order dated 17.07.2017, and was allowed to join service. A copy of the appointment order of the petitioner was also forwarded to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department as well as to the Commissioner & Secretary, to the Government of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management Department.

5. The petitioner accordingly joined service and started discharging his duties. He is continuing in service till date and there is no dispute with regard to the fact that his services have been utilized by the department.

6. However, after about 3 (three) months of service, the salary of the petitioner was abruptly stopped on the purported ground that prior approval of the Finance Department had not been obtained.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the very object of compassionate appointment stands defeated when an appointee appointed to mitigate financial hardship, is denied salary despite working continuously. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for alleged procedural lapses between the departments, particularly when the Finance Department was itself represented in the SLC.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that prior approval of the Finance Department was mandatory and in the absence thereof, salary could not be released.

9. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the material available on record, it appears that the issues that arise for determination in the present lis are whether salary of a person appointed on compassionate ground who has been allowed to work and is continuing in service, can be stopped on the ground of want of prior approval; and whether such action is legally sustainable.

10. Compassionate appointment is not a mode of regular recruitment. It is an exception carved out to alleviate immediate financial distress of a bereaved family. Once such appointment is made following due consideration by the competent authority, the state is required to act with sensitivity, fairness and promptitude.

11. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the recommendation of the State Level Committee, in which the Finance Department was a participant. The appointment order was issued, and the petitioner was allowed to join and discharge his duties. He is continuing in service till date and no fault has been attributed to him either in respect of eligibility or performance.

12. The objection raised by the respondents pertains only to an alleged procedural lapse regarding prior approval. Such an objection, even if assumed to exist, cannot be raised to the prejudice of a compassionate appointee who had no role to play in the internal administrative process.

13. The distinction between an illegal appointment and an irregular appointment is well recognized. The present case does not fall within the category of an illegal appointment. There is no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, absence of a sanctioned post, or lack of eligibility.

14. At best the issue raised is procedural, which cannot override equities arising out of a compassionate appointment followed by continuous service. In Radhey Shyam Yadav and Another Vs. State of U.P and Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 10, the Apex Court has held that the state is not justified in abruptly and without anything more stopping the salary when the employee is working and having no fault in the irregularities said to have been committed by the appointing authorities. Apt also to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in J. N. Srivastava Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (1998) 9 SCC 559, wherein the Apex Court has held that where an employee has worked or was willing to work and he is otherwise deemed to be in service, denial of salary is impermissible and the principle of “no work, no pay” has no application. The said principle applies with greater force in a case of compassionate appointment, where denial of salary defeats the very object of the same.

15. Having allowed the petitioner to work and having continued to utilize his services, the respondents cannot withhold salary on a technical plea. Such action is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

16. This Court is of the considered view that stoppage of salary of the petitioner who was appointed on compassionate ground and who is continuing in service is wholly unjustified and unsustainable in law.

17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

18. The respondents are directed to issue approvals and accord sanction for payment of salary to the petitioner with effect from October, 2017 onwards.

19. Ordered accordingly.

20. The above directions and actual payment of the petitioner’s arrear salary shall be done by respondent authorities within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

21. It is needless to clarify that the respondent authorities shall ensure regular payment of salary to the petitioner henceforth, so long as he continues in service.

22. It is needless to also clarify that the respondent authorities shall ensure strict compliance of the time period stipulated in this order to compete the exercise. JUDGE Comparing Assistant