Point of Law : Claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of the relevant scheme prevalent on the date of demise of the employee.

JUDGMENT :

Soumitra Saikia, J.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition being W.P(C)/4987/2021, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

2. The appellant’s father, who was working as a Pump Operator in the office of the respondent no.6 i.e. Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Lakhipur Sub-division, Pailapool, Lakhipur, Cachar died in harness on 20.05.2015. The petitioner filed application for compassionate appointment on 13.07.2015. The said application was not considered by the District Level Committee (DLC), Cachar and by its meeting held on 19.07.2019, the application was rejected on the ground that there were no vacancies available to accommodate the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 issued by the Government of Assam, Department of Personnel, as per Clause-15 of the said memorandum, if sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to accommodate the persons in the waiting list for compassionate appointment, it was open to the administrative Department/Office to take up the matter with other Departments of the Government to provide at an early appointment on compassionate grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in N. C. Santhosh Vs State of Karnataka and others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 to submit that the law governing compassionate appointment on the date of the consideration of the application shall be the basis for consideration of the application.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submits that the Office Memorandum referred to by the petitioner on 01.06.2015 is not applicable as the father of the petitioner expired on 20.05.2015.

5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the pleadings as well as the Judgment impugned.

6. The claims made by the appellant is with regard to the denial of the benefit under Clause-15 of the Office Memorandum No. ABP 50/2006/Pt/182 dated 1st June, 2015. The appellant seeks the benefit of Clause-15 of the Memorandum. However, a perusal of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 reveals that the said clause cannot be read in isolation without reference to the other clauses in the said office memorandum. For instance Clause-9 provides that the family of the deceased employee shall be considered to be in need of immediate financial assistance if monthly income of the family falls below 90% of the gross monthly salary of the employee before death or monthly income of the family falls below minimum salary of Gr.-IV employee. The relevant clauses, namely, Clause- 9 and 15 are extracted below:-

“9. The family of a deceased or prematurely retired or missing government employee shall be considered to be in need of immediate financial assistance if any of the two conditions mentioned below is satisfied.

(a) The monthly income of the family fall below 90 per cent of the gross monthly salary of the employee before death or premature retirement etc.

(b) The monthly income of the family falls below the minimum salary of a Grade-IV employee (in case of Grade-IV employees) or the minimum salary of a Junior Assistant LDC (in case of employees other than those belonging to Grade IV)

The gross monthly salary, for this purpose shall mean the basic pay along with dearness pay, dearness allowance, house rent allowance and medical allowance. The monthly income of the family shall mean the aggregate of:

(a) Total family pension per month (Basic, Dearness Pension and Relief etc.)

(b) Monthly interest income @ 8% p.a. on the total amount received by the family after death of the employee or retirement of the incapacitated employee (Gratuity, Leave Encashment, any other payments).

Provided that, where such an employee had to incur medical expenses as indoor patient prior to and leading to his deat