MD. AZAHARUDDIN AHMED Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(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 16/7/2008. 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 dtd. 6/8/2018, 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, dtd. 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 dtd. 6/10/2009 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 and 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.