SANJIB PUZARI Vs. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N.K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Board.

(2.) Petitioner's father late Durga Nath Puzari was a grade IV employee (Black Smith) of the Jorhat Electrical Division-I under the Assam State Electricity Board. On 9.5.98 while he was on duty, he suffered a heart attack and died. It is alleged that the incumbent died leaving his widow, the petitioner and two minor daughters. The family plunged into deep financial crisis on sudden death of the only bread earner of the family. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application on 2.6.98 before the administrative Officer (Electrical), Assam State Electricity Board for appointment on compassionate ground. The said application with other connected documents was forwarded to the Executive Engineer, Jorhat Electrical Division who in turn vide letter dated 3.6.98 forwarded the same to the Personal Manager, ASEB,' Guwahati-1 for taking necessary action. According to the writ petitioner, the Board had framed a scheme under the Assam State Electricity Board Employees' Service Regulation affording employment opportunity to the children of the Board's employees dying in harness and, therefore, his application for compassionate appointment ought to have been considered under the aforesaid scheme.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Board submitted that the scheme which was in force has been kept in abeyance since 1994 and at the relevant time i.e. in the year 1998 there was no scheme in force for consideration of the applications submitted by the children of the deceased employees of the Board for appointment on compassionate ground. The learned counsel further submitted that the Board is overstaffed and a decision has been taken to introduce V.R.S. to relieve the Board from its huge financial burden. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the statements made in para 7 and 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Board.