ATHOKPAM SATYABRATA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner praying for his appointment to the post of Section Officer Grade - I (Elect) under 'Die -in -harness' scheme. The petitioner is a graduate and he obtained BE (Elect) degree. He was appointed on March 29, 1990 to the post of Section Officer Grade - II (Elect) against the vacant post of Section Officer Grade - I (Elect) under the die in harness scheme on the expiry of his father who died in harness (Date of death is not mentioned). Since his appointment as such petitioner has been making representation for his appointment in the post of Section Officer Grade - I (Elect) which he claimed to be entitled as similarly situated other persons were appointed in Section Officer Grade - I (Elect) under the scheme. The petitioner has given some examples by which similarly situated persons have been appointed as such (1) Shri Th Ranjit Singh, Section Officer Grade - I in the Public Health Engineering Department, Manipur under the die in harness scheme, (2) Shri K. Lokeshore Singh, B.E (Agri) as Section Officer in the Department of Agriculture under the said scheme vide office order No. 29 dated : February 24, 1989 of the Chief Engineer, PHED, Manipur. Contention of the petitioner is that the post of Section Officer Grade - I to which he was appointed as Section Officer Grade - II is a regular vacancy in the Electricity Department and he has all the requisite qualification for being appointed as Section Officer Gr -I, that he has the reliable information that a number of diploma holders as well as engineering graduates (Elect) have also been again appointed as Section Officer Grade -I even at the first instance of their appointment in the Electricity Department. Further contention of the petitioner is that those engineering graduates who have been appointed as section officer Grade I at the first instance of their appointment under the scheme are equally situated with him and he has been only discriminated for being appointed to the same Grade, that is, Grade -I and which is discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IN a catena of decisions the Apex Court has given guidelines for compassionate appointment under the scheme popularly known as 'Die in harness' scheme. The ratio of those decisions is that in compassionate appointment factors are necessary for being taken into account before affording such employment, that mere death of an employee does not entitle his family for compassionate appointment. The foremost principle of the scheme is that the authority concerned must consider as to whether the family of the deceased employee is unable to meet the financial crisis resulting from the death of the employee. This position has been clarified by their Lordships in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors.(l995 -I -LLJ -798)(SC). For proper appreciation of the situation paragraph 2 of the judgement is qouted below :

(3.) COMING to the case in hand it is found that the petitioner was appointed under the scheme in 1990. Mr. Shyamkishore, learned Govt. Advocate submitted that the other persons who were shown to be appointed under the scheme were appointed in 1992. Therefore petitioner's claim cannot be entertained. Further the petitioner was appointed in a vacant post and his post is secured. The government has been adopting procedure in implementing the scheme which is not above challenge. Apparently the petitioner was appointed against a vacant post of Section Officer Grade - I as Section Officer Grade -II (Elect.) In that case petitioner's appointment shall be considered with other similarly situated employees, no matter they were appointed subsequent to the petitioner. The claimant for appointment on compassionate ground has no right to any particular post of his choice. He can only claim to be considered for such appointment AIR 1994 SC 845. The policy matter / scheme cannot be applied discriminating the similarly situated persons at the will of the concerned authority.