LAWS(GAU)-2010-7-58

SMTI WILLINDA WANNIANG W/O (L) WISEPERLY LYNGDOH R/O SIEJLIEH VILLAGE, NONGSTOIN PS NONGSTOIN DISTRICT WEST KHASI HILLS, MEGHALAYA Vs. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF MEGHALAYA, SHILLONG & OTHERS

Decided On July 05, 2010
SMTI WILLINDA WANNIANG W/O (L) WISEPERLY LYNGDOH R/O SIEJLIEH VILLAGE, NONGSTOIN PS NONGSTOIN DISTRICT WEST KHASI HILLS, MEGHALAYA Appellant
V/S
THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF MEGHALAYA, SHILLONG And OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. AH Hazarika, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. MF Qureshi, the learned State counsel.

(2.) Aggrieved by the refusal of the State respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground, this writ petition has been filed by her for appropriate direction. The admitted positions of the case are that the petitioner is the wife of late Wisperly Lyngdoh who died on 21.07.2006 while he was working as peon in the office of the respondent No. 4. The deceased is survived by the petitioner and their ten children. At this stage, it may be noticed that after the death of the deceased, the petitioner was given officiating appointment from time to time till her service was terminated with effect from 14.11.2008 vide the order dated 5.11.2008 issued by the respondent No. 4. The application for compassionate appointment was filed by the petitioner without delay. However, the State respondents refused to appoint her on the ground that one of the children of the deceased, namely, Smti Teilangbashisha Wanniang had already been employed by them in the Police Department. According to Mr. AH Hazarika, the learned counsel for the petitioner, a married daughter, who was already employed before the death of the deceased cannot be considered to be a dependant of the deceased and as such her appointment in the Police Department, particularly, when she has already been married, cannot be a ground to deny the appointment to the petitioner. On the other hand, Mr Qureshi, the learned State counsel, submits that the Office Memorandum does not make any distinction between a married daughter or an unmarried daughter of a Govt. servant for the purpose of compassionate appointment and that once the daughter of the deceased is found to be under the employment of the State Govt., such employment is sufficient to disqualify the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties and I have also gone through the Office Memorandum dated 11.12.1984 regulating the appointment on compassionate ground. The Office Memorandum says, among others, that only the wife/husband/son/daughter of the Govt. servant (hereafter called relative) who is required to support the family of the deceased will be eligible to be considered for such employment. The term "daughter" is no where defined in the Office Memorandum. However, in my opinion, the meaning of the term "daughter" cannot be extended to include a married daughter. In the instant case, no evidence is produced by the State respondents to show that the married daughter of the deceased is supporting the family members of the deceased or that the family members of the deceased are the dependents of the daughter of the deceased after his death. If that is so, keeping in mind the object of the scheme, denying the appointment to the petitioner on the ground that one of her daughters is already under the employment of the State will defeat the very object of the scheme, namely to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the bread earner of the family. Under the circumstances, the State respondents in refusing the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground have acted arbitrarily, which calls for the interference of this Court.