Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 954 (GAU)

Dipan Kanti Saha v. State of Tripura

2011-12-05

SUBHASIS TALAPATRA, UTPALENDU BIKAS SAHA

body2011
JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. 1. The instant writ appeal is filed by the appellant-writ petitioners for setting aside the judgment and order dated 30.03.2007 in WP(C) No. 95 of 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner for a direction to the State respondents for appointing them on compassionate ground commensurate with their qualifications. Heard Mr. AK Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Add. GA for the state. 2. The case of the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that the petitioners were admittedly appointed on compassionate ground on 13.12.196 and 07.06.1996 to the post of LDC following the death of their respective fathers on 28.09.1995 and 20.11.1995. The educational qualification of the appellant-petitioner No. 1 is M. Com and MBA and the educational qualification of the appellant-petitioner No. 2 is BA (Hons.) and MA in Philosophy. Their main grievance was that some other persons were provided appointment on compassionate ground commensurate to their educational qualification and thus they are also entitled to the same benefit. 3. Mr. Bhowmik while urging for the relief sought for in the appeal would contend that the appellant writ-petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground in a lower post though both of them were highly qualified and they were not provided appointment commensurate with their qualifications which benefit was allowed to other persons namely Smt. Debjani Deb Roy (Sarkar), Sri Mihir Ranjan Pal and Smt. Purnima Choudhury (Laskar) in the year 2001 vide Annexure-C to the writ petition. Thus the State respondents violated the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. He also submits that some other persons were also provided appointment commensurate to their respective educational qualifications in the year 2003. Therefore, the appellant-petitioners cannot and should not be denied by the State respondents the similar benefits. His further contention is that the respondents as a welfare State should not discriminate amongst its citizens, which in the instant case is done. Thus, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellants are entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. 5. Mr. Chakraborty while resisting the submission of Mr. His further contention is that the respondents as a welfare State should not discriminate amongst its citizens, which in the instant case is done. Thus, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellants are entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. 5. Mr. Chakraborty while resisting the submission of Mr. Bhowmik would contend that it was not the case of the petitioners before the writ Court that there were some posts vacant with higher responsibility commensurating to the educational qualification of the petitioners and they were not provided those posts while they were appointed on compassionate ground. 6. He further submits that the State Government considered the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground considering the respective die-in-harness scheme which was in force at the relevant time. He further submits that appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact that the death of an employee while in service leaves his family without any means of livelihood. Mainly the object is to enable the family to overcome the immediate financial crisis and in the instant case it is the admitted position that both the appellant petitioners were appointed by the State Government under the die-in-harness scheme in the year 1996 after the death of their respective deceased father. 7. He finally contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is a well reasoned one and does not call for any interference. 8. We have given our anxious thoughts to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the judgment impugned in this appeal. It appears from the impugned judgment that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, more particularly, the learned Single Judge taking note of all the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the writ petition. 9. On scrutiny of the judgment impugned, it appears that in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge discussed regarding the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendu Kumar, (1998) 5 SCC 192 wherein the Apex Court held that the claim made for appointment to a specific post on compassionate basis is not liable to be entertained. Learned Single Judge also took note of the decision of the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Hayrana, 1994 (4) SCC 138 , wherein the Apex Court held that "The provisions of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned." 10. In paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court stated inter alia, that "in the instant case, the concerned deceased Government servants died as far back as in the year 1995. The Government had appointed the two petitioners to the post of LDC in the year 1996. The petitioners accepted the said post of LDC to tide over the immediate crisis of the family. If they really wanted to aspire for higher position or posts on the basis of their higher educational qualification, they could have easily competed with others for such higher position and could have made effort for recruitment to higher posts on the basis of their higher qualification. They have not made any effort in the past over 10 years. They have instead approached the Court seeking to invoke compassion with a claim for their appointment to higher posts keeping in mind their higher qualification. This is certainly not contemplated by law as, in matters of compassionate appointment, a claimant can seek appointment to a particular post." 11. They have not made any effort in the past over 10 years. They have instead approached the Court seeking to invoke compassion with a claim for their appointment to higher posts keeping in mind their higher qualification. This is certainly not contemplated by law as, in matters of compassionate appointment, a claimant can seek appointment to a particular post." 11. It is the admitted position that the father of the respective appellant-petitioners died in the year 1995 while in service and they were given appointment on compassionate ground in the year 1996 and they have approached the writ Court in the year 1998 by way of filing a writ petition and the said writ petition was withdrawn and subsequently another writ petition filed in the year 2007 wherein the impugned judgment has been passed. It appears from paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment, as stated supra, that the learned single Judge considered the fact and in circumstances which were needed to be considered. 12. As it is settled by this time that appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right and a job seeker on compassionate ground is not entitled to get job in any particular post commensurate to educational qualifications. Rather, the compassionate ground is provided only to tide over with the immediate situation so that the family of the deceased employee should not starve. The learned trial Court also considered Annexure-C, D and E to the writ petition which were referred to by Mr. Bhowmik before us and after considering those documents, learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgment and stated therein that exception to the normal rule of appointment cannot be extended to seek appointments in higher position on compassionate basis, as the same would affect the rights of others who might be aspiring and would be interested to compete for government jobs, in terms of the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. In view of the above position, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge does not require to be interfered with by us as the same is a reasoned one and we are also in full agreement with those reasons. Accordingly, the instant Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.