Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 322 (GAU)

Romeo Thangjam v. Union of India and Ors.

2006-04-03

T.NANDA KUMAR SINGH

body2006
Heard Mr.W.Ojit, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.K.Kumar, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the respondents. [2] Taking into consideration of the innocuous prayer made in the present writ petition, this writ petition is disposed of at this stage. [3] The short factual matrix of the petitioner's case is that the petitioner's father late Shri Th.Saratchandra Singh is a driver in the SISI, Takyel Industrial Estate, Imphal, Manipur and while he was serving in such capacity he died on 29.12.2000 leaving behind 8 (eight) dependants, particulars of which are mentioned in para no.2 of the present writ petition. [4] It is admitted case of both the parties that there is a scheme for compassionate appointment prepared by the Central Government which has been adopted by the respondents. As the petitioner's late father Th.Saratchandra Singh was the sole earning member of his family, after his death, his dependants including the petitioner were left in a very bad financial condition. It is also case of the petitioner that none of members of petitioner's family is employed in the service of the Government of India or in the service of the State Government. Such being the situation, the petitioner is eligible for appointment under the said scheme i.e. the “Scheme for compassionate appointment” copy of which is available at Annexure-A/7 to the present writ petition. [5] It is said that the petitioner's mother on 25.1.2001 filed an application to the Dy Director, I/C SISI, Imphal requesting for appointment of the petitioner in any suitable post under the said scheme of Compassionate appointment which is popularly known as Die-in-harness scheme. Copy of the said representation dated 25.1.2001 is available at Annexure-A/3 to the present writ petition. Later on the petitioner's mother and the petitioner filed applications for appointing the petitioner to any suitable post under the said scheme for Compassionate appointment but for the reasons best known to the respondents, case of the petitioner for appointment under the scheme of Compassionate appointment is still pending with the respondents. [6] But in the Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents mention that at present there is no post for appointment under the scheme for Compassionate appointment. [6] But in the Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents mention that at present there is no post for appointment under the scheme for Compassionate appointment. [7] Considering the submission of learned counsel of both the parties and also on perusal of the record, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider case of the petitioner to any suitable post under the scheme for Compassionate appointment as per turn if the petitioner is eligible for appointment under the said scheme as expeditiously as possible. With the above observation and direction writ petition is allowed.