TAI YANIANG Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Tapin, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of State respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

(2.) By this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has raised the grievances that she was appointed against the post of her husband Late Kaniang who was working as a regular office chowkidar in Group-D post under the Sangram Public Works Department in the pay scale of Rs.750-12-830-EB-14-940 per annum. Husband of the petitioner died in the year 1993 and after his death instead of appointing her on regular basis to the post of Chowkidar in the Group-D post, the respondent authority appointed her in place of her husband on casual basis in a monthly wages initially @ Rs.500.00 and it has been enhanced to Rs.6300.00 after continuous service of 10 (ten) years. It is the case of the petitioner that she has not been provided the basic pay scale of the Group-D employee and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 inspite of their promise has not appointed her in the place of her husband in Group-D post and concealed her compassionate appointment thereby depriving her from getting regular appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this petition with a prayer that she should be appointed to the post of her husband on regular basis w.e.f. 1993 with all consequential financial benefits. The respondent authority stated to have violated the office memorandum dated 04.07.2001 issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, by denying compassionate appointment of the petitioner as per the scheme and thereby violated the Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The respondent authority has resisted the case of the petitioner by filing affidavit-in-opposition submitting inter-allia that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are not competent authority to make any compassionate appointment . The competent authority to appoint regular Group-D post on the compassionate ground is the Secretary to the State of the concerned Department with prior approval of the Minister in Charge as envisaged in the scheme for compassionate appointment by office memorandum No. OM-4/2001 dated 04.07.2001. It has been contended that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are competent authority for recruitment of Group-D work charged establishment and the regulation of appointment, promotion and service of such work charged staff and casual workers, is governed by Office Memorandum No. SPWD- 100/2005/991-100 dated 13.08.07. The petitioner was never assured by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for appointment to the regular post of her deceased husband. However, on humanitarian ground the petitioner was engaged as Casual Worker by respondent No. 4 under his competency since 1993 with an intention to provide her assistance. Similarly, the respondent No. 3 is not the competent authority to appoint the petitioner to the regular Group-D post. The respondent authority denied to have receive any sort of application by the petitioner in prescribed proforma for appointment in the compassionate ground, for processing the case of compassionate appointment.