WP(C)/7493/2023 of RAJESH DEB Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS on 3 February 2026

ORDER

04.02.2026

Heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. P. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL. The prayers made in the present writ petition are for directions to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis in any Gr-III or Gr-IV posts by relating such compassion to the demise of the father of the petitioner in year 2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when no action had been taken to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the death of his father, the petitioner had approached this Court in the year 2020 and by an order dated 29.11.2022 passed in WP(C)/4796/2020, this Court had directed the respondents to take into consideration the case of the petitioner and to pass necessary order thereon. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said representation filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the respondent authorities, which order is now under challenge in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondent has also made his submissions with regard to the long lapse of time which has passed between the death of the father of the petitioner and the present litigation and has submitted that in view of the settled position in law as of today, the case of the petitioner does not deserve a consideration on the basis of compassion only.

After some deliberation in the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is presently serving as a contractual employee under the APDCL authorities itself and he is under instructions that the petitioner is perhaps not being afforded all the benefits as are being afforded to other employees, who are situated similarly. Although, Mr. Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel, APDCL has controverted the said submission, this Court is of the opinion that even in the event that the petitioner’s case for a regular appointment or regularization cannot be considered on the ground of compassion, since he is serving as a contractual employee, the APDCL as a role model employer is required to ensure that he is given all the benefits as are being given to other employees, who are serving the organization in contractual basis. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the APDCL in all fairness would ensure the same and any defect if pointed out by the petitioner in his benefits shall be appropriately addressed by the concerned authorities. In view of the above, the prayers made in this writ petition for appointment/regularization within the APDCL itself on the ground of compassion which cannot be accepted by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed without granting the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the writ petition. However, the respondent authorities would ensure redressal of grievances of the present services of the petitioner, if any grievances are raised.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant