IMPORTANT POINT
Dependents of a confirmed work-charged employee cannot claim the benefit of an appointment on the compassionate grounds under the Die-in-Harness Scheme framed by the Government of Manipur.

JUDGMENT

S.C. Agrawal, J.-Leave granted.

2. Both these appeals raise common questions relating to appointment on compassionate grounds under the Die-in-Harness Scheme (for short the Scheme ) framed by the Government of Manipur.

3. By Office Memorandum dated May 2, 1984 the Government of Manipur issued the Scheme for giving appointment to dependents of government servants who died in harness. In paragraph (3) of the Scheme, as initially framed, it was provided :

"The concession under the above Scheme shall also be applicable to those dependents mentioned in (2) above in respect of those work-charged employees who died-in-harness"

By corrigendum dated May 8, 1984 Office Memorandum dated May 2, 1984 was modified and paragraph (3) was substituted by the following provision :

"The Scheme shall be applicable only to regular Government employees in a vacancy available in the department in which the deceased employee worked."

Subsequently, by Office Memorandum dated August 31, 1992, the Scheme was revised and in the revised Scheme it was expressly provided :

"Since the appointment under the Scheme is meant only for giving immediate relief to the bereaved family, the application complete in all respect should be submitted to the concerned Department within the one year from the date of expiry of the deceased Government servant.

Provided that the applicant has not crossed the maximum age limit prescribed under the R.R. at the time when proposal in its complete form is submitted to the Government and the Government servant was a regular/substantive appointed under the State Government on the day of demise/retired on medical ground (invalid pension). The Scheme will not be applicable to ad hoc/ officiating/ work-charged/ casual/ muster roll appointees."

4. For work-charged employees the Government of Manipur has framed the Terminal Benefits for Work Charged Staff of P.W.D./IPC/PHE/M.I./Electricity, Manipur Rules, 1978 (for short the Terminal Benefits Rules ). Under the Terminal Benefits Rules permanent work-charged employees are allowed certain benefits in the pattern of C.P.W.D. in the matter of pension, gratuity, retirement, leave, holidays, etc.

5. Thingujam Brojen Meetai, the respondent in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.20376 of 1995 is the son of late Th. Amujao Singh, who was employed as a work-charged Truck Driver with the Government of Manipur. Th. Amujao Singh was appointed on February 21, 1978 and he expired on January 31, 1992. After his death, by order dated July 15, 1992, he was confirmed on the post of work-charged Truck Driver with effect from October 1, 1990. After the death of Th. Amujao Singh, the respondent sought appointment under the Scheme. Since he was not given an appointment, he filed a writ petition (Civil Rule No. 171 of 1993) in the Gauhtai High Court seeking an appropriate direction for his appointment on compassionate grounds. The said writ petition of the respondent has been allowed by the High Court by judgment dated June 29, 1995, whereby the appellants have been directed to consider the case of the respondent for appointment to a suitable post commensurate with his educational qualifications under the Scheme. The submission urged on behalf of the appellants that the Scheme was not applicable since the father of the respondent was a work-charged employee was not accepted by the High Court and, in this regard, the High Court placed reliance on its earlier judgment in N. Arun Kumar Singh v. State of Manipur & Ors.1, wherein it was held that a confirmed work-charged employee is entitled to the benefits of the Scheme inasmuch as after confirmation the character of appointment of a work-charged employee is changed. It appears that S.L.P. (Civil) No. 285 of 1993 filed against the said decision of the High Court was dismissed in limine by this Court on February 15, 1993. In the impugned judgment the High Court has observed that the matter has been finally concluded by this Court in dismissing the appeal an