The Gauhati High Court has reaffirmed that a casual appointment made under a compassionate scheme cannot be used to deny regularization when the original claim arises from the death of a government servant in harness. The judgment underscores that once a policy for compassionate appointment exists, its implementation must be uniform and constitutionally sound, rejecting technical distinctions that undermine the scheme’s humanitarian purpose.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smti. Achila Aonok, daughter of the late Mr. Limatoshi Ao, a regular government driver in the erstwhile Irrigation & Flood Control Department (now Water Resources Department, Nagaland), sought regularization of her service after her father died in harness on 23.08.2009. She applied for compassionate appointment on 10.09.2009, but was instead appointed as a Khalasi on a casual basis on 18.08.2012. Despite repeated representations and RTI disclosures showing that later applicants were granted compassionate appointments, her request for regularization was consistently denied on the ground that she was a casual employee.
Key Facts
- The petitioner’s father, Mr. Limatoshi Ao, died in harness on 23.08.2009 while in service as a Driver.
- The petitioner, aged 22 at the time, applied for compassionate appointment on 10.09.2009, citing her mother’s advanced age, unemployment, and her own status as a student.
- The Department issued an order appointing her as a Khalasi on casual basis on 18.08.2012, without reference to the Compassionate Appointment Scheme.
- The petitioner submitted multiple representations for regularization on 22.08.2015, 14.01.2016, and 20.08.2025, all of which were rejected.
- An RTI response dated 13.10.2025 revealed that individuals who applied after her were granted compassionate appointments, while her case was ignored.
- The Department maintained a seniority list of casual employees, placing her at Sl.No.26, and refused regularization citing seniority constraints.
Procedural History
- 10.09.2009: Petitioner files application for compassionate appointment.
- 18.08.2012: Appointed as Khalasi on casual basis.
- 22.08.2015: First formal representation for regularization.
- 14.01.2016: Second representation.
- 13.10.2025: RTI response received, revealing discriminatory practices.
- 20.08.2025: Third representation seeking reconsideration under compassionate scheme.
- 09.02.2026: W.P.(C) 14/2026 disposed of with direction to authorities to consider representation within two months.
- 15.04.2026: Authorities reject regularization, citing casual status and seniority.
- 05.05.2026: Single Judge dismisses W.P.(C) 68/2026, holding that casual appointment cannot be converted to compassionate appointment without setting it aside.
- 08.06.2026: Intra-court writ appeal decided by Division Bench.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: Argued that her appointment originated from a compassionate claim under the 2002 scheme, and labeling it as casual was a procedural error that cannot defeat substantive rights. Cited State of Nagaland v. Asieno Sakhrie and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee to assert that equal treatment under Article 14 mandates regularization.
For the Respondents: Contended that the petitioner accepted a casual appointment in 2012, and therefore cannot now claim rights under a scheme applicable only to regular appointments. Argued that regularization would violate seniority rights of other casual employees.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) regularization of her service from the date of her father’s death or from the date of her application; (2) recognition of her seniority as per the chronological order of applications under the 2002 scheme; and (3) payment of back wages and arrears.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a casual appointment made under the pretext of compassionate grounds, when a formal scheme for regular compassionate appointment was in force, can be treated as a valid substitute for regular appointment, and whether the State can deny regularization on technical grounds such as seniority or prior acceptance of casual status.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on State of Nagaland v. Asieno Sakhrie (2005) 4 GLT 523, where this Court held that the label of ‘contractual’ or ‘casual’ cannot override the origin of the appointment if it stems from a compassionate claim. It was argued that the 2002 O.M. mandates regular appointment for eligible dependents, and the State’s failure to implement it properly cannot be used to deny rights. The petitioner was forced to accept casual employment due to economic vulnerability, and the State’s delay and selective implementation violate Article 14. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee was cited to emphasize that policy must be applied uniformly.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the petitioner was never appointed under the compassionate scheme, but under a separate casual employment category. It argued that the 2012 appointment was accepted by the petitioner, and she cannot now seek to reclassify it. The State also claimed that regularization would disrupt seniority rights of other casual employees and that the 2002 scheme does not permit retrospective application.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench undertook a rigorous examination of the 2002 O.M. and its objectives. The Court observed that the scheme was designed to provide immediate, sustained relief to families of deceased government servants, not to offer stop-gap casual employment. The Court emphasized that the scheme’s language is unambiguous: appointments must be on a regular basis, and only those who meet the criteria are eligible.
"The object of the compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee and the State as a model employer ought not to defeat that object through technical objections."
The Court distinguished the present case from ordinary casual employment by noting that the petitioner’s appointment was not the result of a recruitment process but a direct consequence of her father’s death in harness. The State’s failure to follow its own policy cannot be used to justify discrimination. The Court held that the petitioner’s claim is not for regularization as a casual employee, but for the enforcement of a constitutional and policy-based right to be treated as a compassionate appointee.
The Court further relied on Sukhendu Bhattacharjee to affirm that selective implementation of a policy violates Article 14. The State had granted compassionate appointments to others who applied after the petitioner, yet denied her the same benefit without rational basis. The Court rejected the argument that the petitioner’s prior acceptance of casual employment extinguished her rights, noting that such acceptance was made under duress and economic compulsion.
The Court also clarified that the 2012 appointment was not a valid exercise of the compassionate scheme, and therefore did not require setting aside before reconsideration. The original application dated 10.09.2009 remained live and must be processed under the 2002 scheme.
The Verdict
The writ appeal was allowed. The order dated 05.05.2026 dismissing W.P.(C) 68/2026 was set aside. The State respondents are directed to regularize the petitioner’s service from a date immediately following the last compassionate appointee who applied ahead of her, and ahead of all applicants who applied after 10.09.2009. Her seniority shall be counted from the date of regularization. The petitioner is not entitled to back wages or arrears due to the 14-year delay in approaching the Court. The regularization process must be completed within four months from the date of service of this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Substituted by Casual Employment
- Practitioners must argue that any appointment made under the shadow of a compassionate claim - regardless of its label - must be treated as part of the scheme.
- Casual or contractual labels cannot override the origin of employment if the deceased employee died in harness and the applicant was eligible under the policy.
Equal Treatment Under Article 14 Is Non-Negotiable
- If a government policy grants benefits to a defined class, it must be applied uniformly.
- Selective implementation, even if based on seniority lists of casual employees, violates Article 14 if the underlying eligibility criteria are identical.
Delay Does Not Bar Relief on Regularization, But May Bar Back Wages
- Courts will not deny regularization due to delay if the claim is rooted in a constitutional or policy right.
- However, claims for back wages/arrears may be denied if the petition is filed after an unreasonable lapse, as per Bhikhani Devi v. Union of India.
Procedural Non-Compliance by State Cannot Be Used Against the Applicant
- The State’s failure to follow its own scheme cannot be weaponized to deny rights.
- Applicants forced to accept casual employment due to economic hardship retain their substantive rights under the scheme.
The Burden Is on the State to Justify Non-Implementation
- When a policy exists and an applicant qualifies, the burden shifts to the State to prove why the benefit was denied.
- RTI disclosures showing disparate treatment strengthen the petitioner’s case significantly.
