MISBAHUZZAMAN LASKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. A. Chakra-borty, learned counsel representing Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the primary respondents herein.

(2.) As can be gathered from the pleadings on record, the petitioner's father died-in-harness on 12.07.2011 and at the relevant time he was employed as Head Watchman in the District Office of the Food Corporation of India (FCI), Silchar. On the demise of the bread earner in the family, the petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground by application dated 18.11.11, followed by another application in the prescribed formant submitted on 27.03.2012 before the Area Manager, FCI District Office, Silchar. As the said application remained pending without any positive action, the petitioner was constrained to institute WP(C) No. 4046/2013 and by order of this Court dated 22.08.2013, a direction was made to the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment by a speaking order in respect of his claim. Subsequent thereto, the Office Order dated 26.6.2014 came to be passed under the hand of the Executive Director (NE), FCI, whereby the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected. Grounds assigned is that the petitioner being a married son of the deceased is not eligible for compassionate appointment in view of the guidelines of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) and that of the Circulars issued by the Food Corporation of India. In other words, the petitioner's claim was negated because being a married son he does not fall within the definition of -Dependent Family Member- as per the Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2013. The rejection, according to the petitioner, is wholly illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch as the DoP&T guidelines of 16.01.2013 do not place any embargo as regards appointment of the married son on compassionate grounds.

(3.) Mr. Laskar submits that while rejecting the petitioner's claim, the respondent authorities have relied upon a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) enclosed to the subsequent DoP&T Notification dated 30.05.2013, wherein as against the Question No.13, an answer is given to the effect that a married son cannot be considered for compassionate appointment as a married son cannot be considered as a dependent of a Government servant. According to Mr. Laskar, the FAQ not being a policy guideline, the same could not be made applicable in respect of the claim of the petitioner. Notwithstanding the said FAQ, Mr. Laskar also makes reference to a subsequent FAQ issued in terms of DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 25.02.2015, whereby the embargo so placed was taken out. In the said FAQ, it has been provided to the effect that a married son can be considered for compassionate appointment if he otherwise fulfils all other requirements of the Scheme for compassionate appointment as laid-down in the Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2013. However, the embargo so removed was made effective from 25.02.2015 with the additional clarification that the cases of compassionate appointment already settled with reference to the Office Memorandum dated 30.05.2013 would not be reopened.