Point of Law : compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but must be governed by the terms on which the State lays down the policy of offering employment assistance to a member of the family of a deceased government employee.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Bora, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the State Level Committee to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

3. The petitioner’s father late Dimbeswar Gogoi who was working as a constable in the 3rd Assam Police Task Force at Khajuabeel, under Udalguri, BTAD, Assam was allowed to go on voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 31/12/2014 vide order dated 02/01/2015 issued by the Commandant 3rd APTF Battalion Khajuabeel. The petitioner’s father expired on 30/05/2015. The petitioner being duly qualified, on 01/12/2015, submitted an application to the Director General of Police, Assam, Guwahati for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner case for compassionate appointment was placed before the District Level Committee (DLC) on 16/11/2016 and the DLC recommended the petitioner for appointment to the post of the constable in the Office of the Commandant 3rd APTF Battalion Khajuabeel subject to the ability of 5% vacancy position. The petitioner case was however rejected by the State Level Committee (SLC) on 28/06/2018 on the ground that the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment cannot be considered as his father voluntarily retired from service.

4. Both the learned counsels for the petitioner as well as the State respondents are in unanimity that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment should be considered under the Office Memorandum dated 01/06/2015 (Annexure-G to the writ petition) which is the scheme laying down the principle and procedures to be followed while dealing with the issue of compassionate appointment to the dependant of a government servant.

5. The scheme inter-alia provides that compassionate appointment shall be provided to the eligible dependant family members of the government servant who either (i) die in harness, or (ii) retired prematurely on being permanently incapacitated as declare by a certificate issued by State Level Standing Medical Board and receives invalid pension under the provisions of Rule 82 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 or (iii) missing and whose whereabouts is not known for atleast seven years.

6. On enquiry from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner fulfills the criteria prescribed in the O.M dated 01/06/2015 for appointment on compassionate ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner case is not covered under the scheme. The petitioner’s counsel has however taken this Court to the application dated Nil/08/2014 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) submitted by the petitioner‘s father to the Commandant 3rd APTF Battalion Khajuabeel for granting voluntary retirement from service and also to the Medical certificate dated 14/08/2016 issued by one Doctor Phanindar Sonawal MMBS, Deputy Superintendent, -----Model Hospital, Dibrugarh, to substantiate that the petitioner’s father voluntarily retried from service on medical ground and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. It is the case of the petitioner that as the father of the petitioner applied for retirement on medical ground and the authorities had accepted the same it was not necessary to constitute the medical board as provided in the scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that since the scheme for compassionate appointment has been framed by the State for a beneficial purpose the conditions prescribed in the scheme for compassionate appointment is only directory and strict adherence to the scheme cannot be insisted upon while considering compassionate appointment as in the present case.

7. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Sharif-ud-din -versu