Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 369 (GAU)

Paom in lun Chongloi v. State of Manipur and Anr.

2006-04-17

T.NANDA KUMAR SINGH

body2006
1. Heard Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Th. Ibohal Singh, learned G.A. for the respondents 1 and 2. 2. The fact, stated in short, of the petitioner's case is that the petitioner's father, Late Khopkhosei Chongloi, was working as Forest Guard at Divisional Forest Office, Northern Forest Division, Kangpokpi of Forest Deptt., Govt. of Manipur and died while he was in that capacity on 24.11.2001. 3. Both parties agree that there is a scheme framed by the Govt. of Manipur for appointment of the dependents of the Govt. employees who died -in- harness on compassionate ground. It is also admitted by both the parties that the petitioner being the eldest son of late Khopkhosei Chongloi who died-in-harness on 24.11.2001 is eligible for appointment under the said scheme framed by the Govt. of Manipur popularly known as 'Die-in-Harness Scheme'. It is also said that the petitioner filed a representation dated 7.8.2002 (Annexure-A/8 to the writ petition) for appointment of the petitioner to any post under the die-in-harness scheme but for the reasons best known to the respondents, the case for appointment of the petitioner under the die-in-harness scheme has not been considered and disposed of finally till date. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. The respondents also filed their affidavit-in-opposition stating that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered inasmuch as there are many applicants for appointment under the said die-in-harness scheme. The respondents also annex a list of applicants for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme maintained by the Forest Department as Annexure-D/2 to the counter affidavit of the respondents. Another difficulty on the part of the respondents for making appointment of the petitioner under the die-in-harness scheme is that only 5% of the vacancies are to be filled up under the said die-in-harness scheme. 5. Taking into consideration of the case of the petitioner as well as the case of the respondents stated in their affidavit-in-opposition, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under the said die-in-harness scheme as per the turn, i.e. as per the seniority position of the petitioner in the list of the applicants for appointment under the said die-in-harness scheme as when the vacancy arises within the 5% of the vacancies reserved for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. 6. 6. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.