TALO TAMA Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. T. Michi, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. T. Son, learned senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondents. After the death of his father the petitioner herein approached the competent authority/respondents concerned for his appointment to the post of Field Attendant on compassionate ground under the related Die-in-harness Scheme or in other words, related Govt. Office memorandum pertaining to the appointment on compassionate ground by contending inter alia, that his father late Talo Taka died on 10.1.2000 leaving behind 5(five) legal heirs including the petitioner who is the eldest son of the deceased and his mother.

(2.) According to the petitioner, late Talo Taka was the only bread earner in otherwords, sole earning member of the family and, he died in harness while he was serving as Cattle Attendant in Composite Live stock. Farm, Nirjuli. It is also the case of the petitioner that despite the submission of Succession Certificate etc.to the appropriate authority, the authority concerned paid no heed to the same till date without any justification. Having no alternative, the petitioner approached the court for an appropriate order and direction in the matter. Mr. T. Michi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondents authority had given appointment to Shri Markar Riram against the post of Cattle Attendant which fell vacant due to the death of the petitioner's father vide, Government office letter/order dated 25.5.200)3 as in Annexure-D to the writ petition instead of affording the same to the writ petitioner. According to Mr. Michi learned counsel. The respondents had ignored the case of the writ petitioner rather, failed to perform their lawful duties conferred upon them particularly they failed to take necessary action and steps in terms of the related office memorandum pertaining to the appointment on compassionate ground. At the hearing, Mr. T. Son, learned senior Govt. Advocate argued that the petitioner misled the court and made false representations in filing the writ petition inasmuch as, the State respondents had given appointment to the writ petitioner by engaging himself as Contingent paid attendant, Nirjuli so as to enable him to maintain and support his family members. This statement made by the learned Sr.Govt. Advocate at the bar is not disputed by Mr. T. Michi, learned counsel for the petitioner as there is no reply affidavit or rejoinder affidavit from the end of the petitioner.

(3.) Be that as it may, the claim for appointment on compassionate ground or under Die-in-hamess Scheme arises only when a sole earning member (Govt employee) dies- in-harness. A bare perusal of the Govt. Office Memorandum as in Annexure-C shows that the Government is to afford immediate need or assistance to the family members of the Govt. Servant who dies-in-harness and to rehabilitate the family members in distress and to save them rather, to protect them from hardship faced by them and, such appointment should not be delayed at any cost and the State respondents should make its best endeavor to afford such appointment to the needy and rightful claimants or persons who claim appointment on compassionate ground. At this stage, I hereby recall the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Smti Sushma Gosain and others, appellants V. Union of India and others, respondents reported in AIR 1989 SC 1976 wherein the Apex Court held thus :-