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 29.3.90 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 ,heme. 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, BE (Agri) as Section Officer in the Department of Agriculture under the said scheme vide office order No. 29 dated 24.2.89 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 qualifications 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-Vs-State of Haryana & Ors (1994 4 SCC 138). For proper appreciation of the situation paragraph 2 of the judgment is quoted below:

(3.) From the series of judgments it can be held that appointment on compassionate ground must be on the following considerations; 1) a dependant member of the family is entitled to compassionate appointment subject to fulfilment of necessary conditions, 2) that application must be made within a period of one year from the date of death of the deceased, 3) the government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and if it is only satisfied that the family will be in hardship if a jdb is not afforded to the eligible member of the family, 4) the posts in Class-III and IV are the lowest posts in non manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate ground, the object being to relieve the family of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency, 5) there cannot be choice for the post by the applicant claiming compassionate appointment under -the scheme, 6) no other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose, 7) compassionate appointment is given to tide over the immediate financial destitutes faced by the death of the bread winner and not to provide employment for the members, 8) the applicant must have minimum qualification for appointment 9) neither the qualifications of the dependants of the deceased nor the post which the deceased held is relevant to appoint on compassionate ground in the higher posts.