TRINITY THYRMANG Vs. STATE OF MAGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner's father, namely, Late Bastington Sukhlain, died, on 3.4.2006, while working, in the office of Khliehriat C & RD Block, in a permanent post of Senior Gramsevak, under the Govt. of Meghalaya, leaving behind his wife and seven children including the present Petitioner. After the death of the father of the Petitioner, the Petitioner applied for appointment, on compassionate ground, in terms of the scheme embodied in Office Memorandum, dated 11.11.1984, issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (B), Govt. of Meghalaya. The Petitioner was given ad hoc appointment, on 28.9.2007, as LDA-cum- Typist in the office, where the Petitioner's father had been working at the time he died-in- harness. Having considered the Petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate ground, the Respondents have rejected her application, on 10.10.2008, on the ground that the Petitioner's mother is working as a teacher in a Govt. school. The fact that the Petitioner's mother so works is not in dispute. Aggrieved by the order, dated 10.10.2008, aforementioned, this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking issuance of appropriate directions to the Respondents.

(2.) While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be borne in mind that ordinarily, a public employment shall be made after allowing all eligible candidates to participate in the process of selection and appointment. To this general principle of public employment, appointment on compassionate ground, such as, the ground of the death of only bread earner of a family, is an exception. The object of making appointment on compassionate ground is to provide employment to one of the members of the family of a Govt. employee, who dies-in-harness, leaving no other bread earner in the family, so as to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the financial crisis, which the family may face, due to sudden death of the only bread earner of the family.

(3.) Bearing the above aspect of law in mind, the Respondents were to consider the case of the present Petitioner. There is no dispute that the Petitioner made her application seeking appointment within the prescribed period of one year from the premature death of her father. The Respondents have, however, denied to her appointment on compassionate ground, the reason for declining to appoint the Petitioner is that her mother is a teacher in a Govt. School. When the Petitioner's mother works as a teacher in a Govt. School, it becomes clear that the Petitioner's family is not such a family, which has been left with no bread earner. This apart, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned GA that the Petitioner's mother, being a Govt. employee, is entitled to receive pension after her retirement, which is due in October, 2010. If, under these circumstances, this Court directs that the benefit of the Office Memorandum, dated 11.11.2008, aforementioned be extended to the Petitioner, it would amount to denying appointment, under the scheme of compassionate ground, to a more deserving family, which may be facing financial crisis on being left with no earning member in the family.