Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 332 (GAU)

Lukram Kabothoi Meitei v. Union of India and Anr.

2005-04-26

T.NANDA KUMAR SINGH

body2005
1. Heard Mr. M. Hemchandra Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner as well as Mr. K. Kumar Singh, learned CGSC for the respondents 1 and 2. 2. The succinct fact of the writ petitioner is that his father, Lukram lbohal Singh, was a regular Auditor in the Office of the Accountant General, Manipur, and because of his suffering from paranoed schizophrenia, he was allowed to retire from his service on medical ground with effect from 31.10.1996 vide order of the Deputy Accountant General (Audit) Memo No. Estt(Au)/Order No. 348 dated 11.10.1996 (Annexure-All to the writ petition). The dependents of the petitioner's father, Shri L. lbohal Singh, as on 11.10.1996, are: (1) Smt. Lukram (0) Thambalsana Chanu, aged about 71 years (Mother); (2) Smt. Lukram (0) Memcha Devi, aged about 43 years (Wife); (3) Shri Lukram Kaobothoi Meitei, aged about 18 years (Son, the present writ petitioner); (4) Km. L. Omita @ lbemchabi Devi, aged about 26 years (Daughter), and (5) Km. L. Limpa @ Sanathoi, aged about 16 years (Daughter) 3. After the retirement of the petitioner's father on medical ground, condition of his father had been worsening and amount of money had been spent for the treatment of his father; but his father died on 5.2.2001. It is the admitted fact of both the parties that there is a scheme for appointment on compassionate ground to the dependent(s) of the deceased employee or/who retired on medical ground to mitigate the financial hardship of the family of the deceased employee or/who retired on medical ground. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that the family members of late Lukram Ibohal Singh were solely dependent on the meager income from the source of the pay and allowances of late L. Ibohal Singh, but after his death, his dependents were left in a very precarious financial position as a result thereof they are still at the stage of starvation as all amount of money so received by the family members of late L. Ibohal Singh, including the present writ petitioner, had been spent for the medical treatment of their bread earner, father of the present writ petitioner, Shri L. Ibohal Singh, 5. The writ petitioner filed an application on 23.12.1996 to the Accountant General (Audit), Manipur, Imphal, (AnnexureAl2 to the writ petition) for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner's sisters, namely (1) Km. The writ petitioner filed an application on 23.12.1996 to the Accountant General (Audit), Manipur, Imphal, (AnnexureAl2 to the writ petition) for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner's sisters, namely (1) Km. L. Omita @ Ibemchabi Devi and (2) Km. L. Limpa @ Sanathoi, had no objection to the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate . ground. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and other dependents of late L. lbohal Singh had been living in a katcha house constructed on a small plot of land belonging jointly to 4(four) brothers of late L. Ibohal Singb, viz. (1) Late L. Ibohal Singh; (2) L. Ibopishak Singh; (3) Late Sashikumar Singh and (4) Kamraj Sing. The grand-father of the petitioner, i.e father of late L. Ibohal Singh, had a paddy field measuring about 2.5 acre but the same had been gifted by the petitioner's grand-father to the children of Spi L. Ibopishak Singh,and as such the petitioner and other dependents of late L. Ibohal Singh have no paddy land. For convenience to medical check up of his late father, L. Ibohal Singh, the dependents., out of the little money they had, purchased a second hand Luna Moped but the same was also sold out at Rs. 200l/- and also to meet the expenses incurred in the medical treatment of his late father, L. Ibohal Singh, the small Power Triller was also sold out in the year 2001 at Rs. 30,000/-. Such being the situation, the petitioner and other dependents of late L. Ibohal Singh were left in a very bad financial situation on the death of his father, L. Ibohal Singh and they were living with the money borrowed from near and others, but the borrowed money are to be repaid by the petitioner and other dependents and for such repayment, the petitioner and other dependents have been pressurized like anything. The petitioner also learnt that from the letter of the Sr. Audit Officer (Administration) dated 18.1.2003 to the Dy. The petitioner also learnt that from the letter of the Sr. Audit Officer (Administration) dated 18.1.2003 to the Dy. Accountant General (A&E), Manipur, Imphal regarding the appointment of wards of deceased government servants that the Office of the Accountant General(AU), Manipur , Imphal is maintaining the list of 7(seven) applicants for appointment on compassionate ground in order of seniority and in that list, the name of the present writ petitioner appears at sl.no.l inasmuch as he filed his application for appointment on compassionate ground earlier than all those remaining six applicants. 6. The petitioner's educational qualification is Class XI and as such he could be appointed to any post, i.e. either Grade-III (Group 'C') or Grade-IV (Group 'D'). Even if the petitioner tops the said list of the applicants for appointment on compassionate ground maintained by the Office of the Accountant General (AU), Manipur, lmphal, the petitioner is not appointed to any post; while his juniors, i.e. (1) one Mr. T.D. Johnson Chiru and (2) Shri Ramlal Sharma, were appointed to the post of Clerk/Typist and Peon respectively in the Office of the Accountant General (Audit), Manipur and Sr. Deputy Accountant General (A&E), Manipur respectively on 19th July, 2004. Being aggrieved by the non-consideration of the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate ground by the respondents, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 7. The respondents 1 and 2 also filed their affidavit-in opposition. In their affidavit-in-opposition, it is stated that the petitioner and other dependents of late L. Ibohal Singh had a Moped Luna and Power Tiller and some plot of paddy land and as such they are not in the very bad financial condition and also that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered as there is a delay of more than (2)two years in considering the case of the petitioner for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme according to a letter said to have been written by the Govt.of India, Ministry of Personnel and Training (Deptt. Of Personnel and Training) dated 5.5.2003 prescribing maximum time limit of 3(three) years for a person's name under consideration for compassionate appointment. 8. From the perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition and also from the submissions of the learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. Of Personnel and Training) dated 5.5.2003 prescribing maximum time limit of 3(three) years for a person's name under consideration for compassionate appointment. 8. From the perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition and also from the submissions of the learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2, it is clear that the respondents made an enquiry behind the back and knowledge of the petitioner and came to a finding, which is not correct according to the writ petitioner ,that the writ petitioner and other dependents of late L. Ibohal Singh have the source to manage themselves on the death of Shri L. Ibohal Singh. 9. In the course of hearing of the present writ petition, the learned CGSC did not produce copy of the said letter dated 5.5.2003 written by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel and Training (Departnemt of Personnel and Training) for prescribing maximum time limit of 3 (three ) years for considering of a name for compassionate appointment. The copy of the said letter of the Govt. of India dated 5.5.2003 was also not annexed in the affidavit in opposition of the respondents. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submitted that the delay in appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was due to the lapse, of the respondents and it was not for the fault of the petitioner. Such being the situation, the respondents, according to the well settled principle of law, cannot take undue advantage of their inaction and fault. The learned counsel for the petitioner, further, submitted that the said finding of the enquiry which was held by the respondents behind the back and knowledge of the petitioner is not correct inasmuch as the clear explanation had already been mentioned in the present writ petition. The said explanation had already been discussed above. It is an accepted well-settled principle of law that the High Court and the Administrative Tribunal cannot give direction for appointment of a person on compassionate ground, but can merely direct for petitioner for such appointment. It is also well settled that it is not the vested right of the dependents of the deceased employee to claim compassionate appointment and appointment on compassionate ground could only be made when there is vacancy. It is also well settled that it is not the vested right of the dependents of the deceased employee to claim compassionate appointment and appointment on compassionate ground could only be made when there is vacancy. This court fully endorsed the well settled principle of law mentioned above, but in the present case, it appears that the proper enquiry had not been made by the respondents as to whether the petitioner is/was eligible for appointment on compassionate ground under the relevant die-inharness scheme. 10. For the reasons discussed above, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground under the relevant die-in-harness scheme as and when vacancy arises in any suitable post commensurate with the educational qualification of the petitioner within one month from the date of vacancy so arises. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. No order as to costs.