SUNITI BALAKAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for giving a direction to the respondents to issue the letter of appointment in favour of petitioner No. 2 and in the event of failure to do so, to pay a consolidated compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ -.

(2.) THE respondents admitted the issuance of the offer of appointment to the petitioner No. 2 but contested the case contending, inter alia, that the petitioner No. 2, on scrutiny of her testimonials, was found to be ineligible for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk. Her age was found to be above the upper age limit prescribed in the Government policy for appointment as LDC. Her date of birth is 02.01.1955 and she was 38 years 8 months 10 days on the date of death of her brother. Her matter was even referred to the Government for relaxation of age but it was turned down. As per employment policy of the Government, the respondent No. 2, thus, sanctioned a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - in favour of the petitioner No. 1 in lieu of Government employment. Thus, the petition is not maintainable.

(3.) THAT , before I enter into the merit of the case, it may be useful to look into the aim and object of the introduction of policy for appointment on compassionate ground. It has been well settled that appointments in public services are to be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of application and merit as envisaged under Article 16(1) of the Constitution. The Government, from time to time, made policies for appointment of the dependants of the employees, who died -in -harness, leaving behind the dependants in penury and without any means of livelihood as an exception to Article 16(1) of the Constitution. Such policies are made to ensure that the family of a Government servant, who dies in harness, does not suffer from extreme financial hardships/difficulties and the family gets the benefit of having at least one salaried person. In other words, such Government policies are made to save the dependents from the hand of starvation after the death of sole earning member. In General Manager (D and PB) and Ors. v. Kunti Tiwariand Anr. : (2004)IIILLJ1136SC , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the criteria of penury has to be applied and only in cases where the condition of family is without any means of livelihood and living hand to mouth, the compassionate appointment was required to be granted. It is also well settled that such compassionate appointment shall be made at the earliest taking into consideration the financial condition of the dependents, the grant of compassionate appointment after many years, except in special circumstances, is always against the aim and object of the policy.