Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 240 (MEG)

Md. Azaharuddin Ahmed v. State of Meghalaya

2022-09-07

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner's father who was working as a Chowkidar in the office of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (Roads), Shillong Central Division, Shillong died while in service on 16.07.2008. At that relevant point of time, there being a Scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, an application had been made on 14.10.2008, but the same it seems, was left unattended and was ultimately rejected by letter dated 06.08.2018, which has prompted the petitioners, to approach this Court by way of the instant writ petition. 2. Mr. S.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the demise of his father, an application had been filed for appointment on compassionate ground, which was as per the Scheme of the State Government given in O.M. No. PER (AR) 154/78/147, dated 11.12.1984. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the matter was then processed, and an enquiry was also made with regard to the financial position of the family of the petitioner. However, after this initial spurt of activities from the part of the respondents, he submits nothing was forthcoming except that the petitioner's mother was given family pension, which was availed by her and by his sister. He therefore, prays that as the application had been made in time, before the suspension of the Scheme for compassionate appointment by the State in 2010, and as the same had been processed, the petitioner is entitled to be favoured with compassionate appointment. 3. Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA in reply to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner has relied on the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, and firstly submits that the application for compassionate employment was not in the proper form and the same was also not made by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner's claim is hopelessly delayed and that it was never pursued diligently. The learned counsel has also questioned the veracity of the representation dated 06.10.2009 which he submits was never received by the respondents. It is further submitted that petitioner's family were granted family pension and as such, at this stage, the consideration for grant of any compassionate appointment will not arise. The learned counsel has also questioned the veracity of the representation dated 06.10.2009 which he submits was never received by the respondents. It is further submitted that petitioner's family were granted family pension and as such, at this stage, the consideration for grant of any compassionate appointment will not arise. He therefore submits that considering the delay and factors that are to be taken into account and that such appointment, is an exception to the general rules for appointment, the writ petition was liable to be rejected. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments namely, Union Bank of India & Ors. vs. M.T. Latheesh reported in (2006) 7 SCC 350 and the case of K. Pushpaleela vs. The Commissioner, Milk Production and Dairy Development, Chennai and ors. reported in SCC Online Mad 30361. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the materials on records. 5. First, it is noted that the deceased employee had expired as far back as on 2008 and the writ petition has been filed only on 22.05.2019 i.e. after a considerable period of time had elapsed. The documents annexed to the writ petition, apart from the initial application though not in the proper form, but taken cognizance by the respondents, reflect a total absence of concrete efforts on the part of the petitioner to pursue the matter for many years. The fact that the family had also availed family pension cannot be disregarded and the same has to be taken into account. 6. For consideration of compassionate appointment, certain factors have to be taken into account, the main being the financial condition of the family when the breadwinner of the family passes away. In most cases, Schemes have been envisaged and implemented, to save families from being rendered destitute and left in distressful conditions. It is in such backdrop and circumstances that compassionate appointment is made by the State or other authorities. Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but rather is an exception to the general rule and in consideration thereof, the circumstances apart from other factors, such as delay is to be taken into account, though the main factor is always the financial situation of the family. 7. Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but rather is an exception to the general rule and in consideration thereof, the circumstances apart from other factors, such as delay is to be taken into account, though the main factor is always the financial situation of the family. 7. In the instant case, the main consideration of financial distress no longer exists, as by the petitioner's own averments, his mother and thereafter his sister were paid family pension by the respondents. The writ petitioner after a lapse of many years, has approached this Court only in 2019, to re agitate a claim on a perceived right, when in fact, he has not accrued any vested right whatsoever, to sustain his claim. 8. The claim therefore being untenable for the aforementioned reasons, this writ petition stands dismissed and is accordingly disposed of.