Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 60 (MEG)

Johny Marboh v. State of Meghalaya

2018-09-10

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. The case set up by the petitioner is that his father Late Lalmalsoma was working as Grade IV in the respondent department but died in harness on 29.07.2004. The petitioner represented for being appointed on compassionate basis. 2. Vide Office Order No. MVD/E-3/Pt-IH/04/11174 dated 05.08.2004 issued by the Director of A.H. & Veterinary, Meghalaya, Shillong, has been allowed to officiate as Attendant in the Establishment of Disease Investigation Officer, A.H. & Veterinary, Shillong in the scale of pay of Rs. 2440-40-2680-EB-50-3080-60-3680/- per month plus other allowances as admissible under rules for a period of two months only w.e.f. the date of joining but is continuing till date. The petitioner seems to have represented before the respondent authorities for permanently absorbing him, same has not happened hence, the instant petition. 3. Petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment in terms of Office Memorandum No. PER (AR) 154/78/147 dated 11.12.1984 issued by the Government of Meghalaya. Instead of giving him regular compassionate appointment in terms of the said OM, has been engaged in a regular pay scale to officiate only for a period of two months. It is not understandable as to why the order was a conditional one, for a period of two months that too without mentioning on 'compassionate basis.' 4. Now, there is a later development i.e., fresh notification has been issued on 02.12.2010 by the Government of Meghalaya in terms whereof, scheme for employment on compassionate ground as provided under the O.M. No. PER (AR) 154/78/147 dated 11.12.1984 has been abolished w.e.f. 24.11.2010 with a condition that only pending proposals including those arising upto 24.11.2010 will be examined on merit by the Government. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that compassionate scheme governed by O.M. dated 11.12.1984 has been abolished, therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered. 6. The notification abolishing the compassionate appointment scheme dated 11.12.1984 protects the position of the petitioner. The words employed i.e., 'only pending proposals including those arising upto 24.11.2010 will be examined on merit by the Government' takes into sweep the case of the petitioner because the petitioner, in effect has been engaged on compassionate appointment, in effect his case is pending for permanent absorption. The words employed i.e., 'only pending proposals including those arising upto 24.11.2010 will be examined on merit by the Government' takes into sweep the case of the petitioner because the petitioner, in effect has been engaged on compassionate appointment, in effect his case is pending for permanent absorption. The notification dated 02.12.2010 has no adverse effect on the rights of the petitioner because he has been continuing working with the respondent department right from the month of August 2004 i.e., immediately after the death of his father in harness, at this stage his right for permanent absorption subject to fulfilment of other requisite conditions cannot be denied. 7. Appointment on compassionate basis is the departure from normal appointment, the logic and object of such appointment is to save the family of the deceased employee from financial crisis. The scheme has laudable object of protecting the family from financial hardships, in effect and in principle, the petitioner has been granted the benefit but unnecessarily with a condition which condition by itself stand diluted because the petitioner has been continuing now for last more than fourteen years. 8. In the stated facts and circumstances, right of the petitioner cannot be allowed to be jeopardized merely on the ipse dixit of the respondent authorities. Unnecessarily, the petitioner has been subjected to mental agony and to unwanted circumstances, therefore, petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to accord due consideration to the case of the petitioner for permanent absorption as against the post he has been working right from the year 2004. The engagement of the petitioner being in effect on compassionate basis, so requires no further elaboration, the respondents after considering the case of the petitioner shall pass appropriate orders regarding his permanent absorption within two months from today. 9. Disposed of as above.